The works of James Abram Garfield

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at|http: //books .google .com/I

\ y§ g PROPERTY OF THE

ARTES SCIENTIA VERITAS

THE WORKS

OF

JAMES ABRAM GARFIELD

Vol. I.

(

-^^^^:iyi^^

S. ** '

THE WORKS

[James Abram Garfield

EDITED BV

BURKE A. HINSDALE

UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

DDCim 4!&

CAirriON Please handle this volume with care.

The paper is very brittle.

/l

THE WORKS

OF

^MES Abram Garfield

EDITED BY

BURKE A. HINSDALE

PRBSIDBMT OF HISAM COLLBGB

VOL. I.

' .

^•*i

BOSTON
JAMES R. OSGOOD AND COMPANY

CLEVELAND: COBB, ANDREWS, & CO.

1882

Copyright, 1S8S,
By Lucretia R. Garfield.

Ai/ rights reserved.

Univbrsity Prbss:
John Wilson and Son, Cambridge.

{ntet: folta frttctuK.

PREFACE.

FOR several years President Garfield had looked
forward to a time when he would be able to revise
and publish such of his speeches and writings as he
deemed worthy of a place in American literature. It
was a purpose that lay near his heart. What he would
have selected for publication, and how far he would have
carried revision, can now be only matters of speculation.
His untimely death, which defeated so many other plans
and dashed so many other hopes, prevented the realiza-
tion of this fond anticipation, and, through the partiality
of Mrs. Garfield, devolved the editorship of his works
upon me. An account of the manner in which I. have
discharged the trust seems called for.

The works were to be limited to matter that had been
published in its authors lifetime. All letters, manu-
scripts, etc. were reserved for future use. As to the han-
dling of this material, it should be said, first of all, that no
editor could have the same rights and powers over it that
belonged to him who produced it. Equally obvious are
the principles that should govern the selection of mate-
rial to be used. Everything of real value that deals with
questions of permanent interest, everything that is a
material part of the history of the times, and everj^thing

viii PREFACE.

that has a considerable personal interest flowing from
its author, as illustrating the man, should obviously be
included in the authorized edition of his Works. It
has seemed best not to draw upon such material as
exists produced before 1863, but to leave that to the
biographer, and to begin these Works with Mr. Gar-
field s entry into Congress. Accordingly these two vol-
umes are made up wholly of matter which, in some
form, has already been given to the public. They do
not by any means contain everything that President
Garfield said and wrote which has been published ; but
they give a full measure both of the quantity and qual-
ity of his published thought. All of his utterances had
life in them ; but it is believed that everything, or nearly
everything, is here presented, the value and interest of
which entitle it to admission to the popular edition of
his works. If anything has been omitted that should
have been included, it is owing either to the editors
having overlooked it, or to a false judgment of its value.

The larger number of these speeches, addresses, and
papers, making due allowance for needed verbal correc-
tions,, appear as they came from their authors hand.
From some of them portions have been omitted, since
they would but load down the work. These portions
may be divided into two classes ; namely, passages that
were of merely local or temporary interest, and passages
that contain what has been as well or better said in
some other place. Perhaps some critics will say that
the rule of exclusion, under both these heads, might have
been carried further with advantage. The following re-
marks will, therefore, be pertinent.

First More or less matter has been retained that is
not now and will never again be of immediate practical

PREFACE. IX

utility. If this is not true of whole compositions, it cer-
tainly is of parts of compositions. Some of the statis-
tical tables, and the analyses of national expenditures
found in the speeches on Appropriations, may be in-
stanced. But this matter should obviously be retained ;
first, because it is a part of the history of the times ; and
secondly, because it is part of the history of President
Garfield's mind and work, and will well illustrate his
mental habit and method of discussion.

Second. It has been found impossible wholly to pre-
vent repetition and overlapping. Mr. Garfield was emi-
nently a didactic statesman. He was a teacher both of
the National Legislature and of the public. He discussed
the same subject in many different places and at many
different times. He often discussed the same subject —
as Resumption of Specie Payments, and the Tariff —
in the House of Representatives, and before popular
assemblies. Naturally, therefore, perhaps it may be
said necessarily, his speeches and writings contain fre-
quent repetitions, not only of facts and arguments, but
also of diction and illustration. The widest as well
as the most frequent overlapping is found in his Con-
gressional speeches and popular addresses on political
subjects which were delivered at about the same time.
In these volumes, notwithstanding a constant effort to
reduce repetition to a minimum, repetitions will still be
found. Touching these it may be said that they could
not be omitted without impairing the integrity of the
composition, or weakening the force of the related parts
of the speech or paper. The reader will not however,
weary of these passages. He will find the same subject
coming up for discussion again and again ; but he will
find that, even upon those subjects which President

X PREFACE.

Garfield discussed most frequently and fully, the mat-
ter is almost always new and the diction fresh. And
even when he finds facts, arguments, or quotations that
he has met before, he will find them in new combina-
tions and answering new purposes.

Some readers may perhaps say that the historical
illustration of the text, at least in some cases, is exces-
sive. Such readers should remember, first, that the
works of our older statesmen have often suffered from
lack of such illustration ; secondly, that the subjects
with which President Garfield dealt, particularly in the
early part of his public life, are rapidly receding ; and,
thirdly, that no adequate life of him has yet appeared,
or is likely to appear for some time to come. Con-
cerning the second of these points, — the rapidity with
which events in our age pass into history, — a few wordis
may well be spoken. As long ago as Februarj', 1876,
he himself touched one phase of this subject. " More
than a million votes," said he, " will be cast at the next
Presidential election by men who were schoolboys in
their primers when the great financial measures of 1862
were adopted ; and they do not realize how fast or how
far the public mind has drifted. The logbook of this
extraordinary voyage cannot be read too often." In
fact, it is not extravagant to say that there are hun-
dreds of thousands of young Americans to-day who
know no more of the events of 1862 than they do of
the events of 1776, if indeed they know so much. If
the historical commentary is too full for some readers,
it is not for others ; and for none will it be too full in
the next generation.

Much labor has been bestowed upon the quotations,
both to verify them, and to give the appropriate refer-

PREFACE. XI

ences. Occasionally the matter quoted was ephemeral,
and search for the original was profitless ; but in all other
cases no reasonable effort has been spared to track
the quotation to its source. When it is considered that
the author's literary habits were rather those of a public
man than of a man of letters, and when it is remem-
bered that his speeches were often prepared and deliv-
ered under great stress both of time and labor, it will
not appear strange that in many cases he has left no
references to the originals he has quoted, and that they
cannot readily be found.

The question of arrangement has been carefully con-
sidered. This question was. Shall the topical or the
chronological method be followed.'^ Each course had
great and obvious advantages. Finally, however, the
chronological order, with departures few and slight, was
adopted, as doing best justice both to the history of
the author's mind and to the history of the country.
Those who wish to study his utterances upon special
subjects in group can, with the aid of the Contents and
the Index, readily group them for themselves.

The pamphlet editions of speeches and addresses
have been followed in all cases, where such editions
exist, to the exclusion of the reports found in news-
papers, and in the Congressional Globe and Record.

The thanks of both Mrs. Garfield and the editor are
tendered to Messrs. Houghton, Mifflin, & Co., publishers
of the Atlantic Monthly, to Mr. A. T. Rice, publisher
of the North American Review, and to A. J. Johnson
& Co., publishers of Johnson s New Universal Cyclo-
paedia, for their permission, so courteously granted, to
include in these works the articles credited to their
respective publications.

xii PREFACE.

It has been stated, or at least implied, above, that
everything heretofore published that has real value has
been included in these Works. One exception should be
made. There is a series of Minor Speeches, eminently
characteristic of their author, most of them delivered
between his nomination by the Chicago Convention and
his inauguration as President, which are well worthy of
collection and publication, but which can hardly be ad-
mitted, with propriety, to his Works. These have been
carefully prepared for publication by Col. A. F. Rock-
well, of the United States army, and they will shortly
appear in a worthy form, from the press of the Century
Company.

The preceding explanation made, I now ask leave to
transcribe some words of characterization spoken by the
Hon. James G. Blaine before the House of Representa-
tives and the Senate, in the hall of the House, Febru-
ary 27, 1882, and then to add some remarks of my own.

** As a parliamentary orator, as a debater on an issue squarely
joined, where the position had been chosen and the ground laid
out, Garfield must be assigned a very high rank. More, per-
haps, than any man with whom he was associated in public life,
he gave careful and systematic study to public questions, and
he came to every discussion in which he took part with elabo-
rate and complete preparation. He was a steady and indefati-
gable worker. Those who imagine that talent or genius can
supply the place or achieve the results of labor will find no en-
couragement in Garfield's life. In preliminary work he was apt,
rapid, and skilful. He possessed in a high degree the power
of readily absorbing ideas and facts, and, like Dr. Johnson, had
the art of getting from a book all that was of value in it by a
reading apparently so quick and cursory that it seemed like a
mere glance at the table of contents. He was a pre-eminently
fair and candid man in debate, took no petty advantage, stooped
to no unworthy methods, avoided personal allusions, rarely ap-
pealed to prejudice, did not seek to inflame passion. He had

PREFACE. xiii

a quicker eye for the strong point of his adversary than for his
weak point, and on his own side he so marshalled his weighty
arguments as to make his hearers forget any possible lack in
the complete strength of his position. He had a habit of stating
his opponent's side with such amplitude of fairness and such
liberality of concession, that his followers often complained that
he was giving his case away. But never in his prolonged par-
ticipation in the proceedings of the House did he give his case
away, or fail, in the judgment of competent and impartial listen-
ers, to gain the mastery

" Those unfamiliar with Garfield's industry, and ignorant of
the details of his work, may, in some degree, measure them by
the annals of Congress. No one of the generation of public
men to which he belonged has contributed so much that will
be valuable for future reference. His speeches are numerous,
many of them brilliant, all of them well studied, carefully
phrased, and exhaustive of the subject under consideration.
Collected from the scattered pages of ninety royal octavo vol-
umes of Congressional Records, they would present an invalu-
able compendium of the political history of the most important
era through which the national government has ever passed.
When the history of this period shall be impartially written,
when war legislation, measures of reconstruction, protection of
human rights, amendments to the Constitution, maintenance of
public credit, steps towards specie resumption, true theories
of revenue, may be reviewed, unsurrounded by prejudice and
disconnected from partisanism, the speeches of Garfield will be
estimated at their true value, and will be found to comprise
a vast magazine of fact and argument, of clear analysis and
sound conclusion. Indeed, if no other authority were accessi-
ble, his speeches in the House of Representatives from Decem-
ber, 1863, to June, 1880, would give a well-connected history
and complete defence of the important legislation of the sev-
enteen eventful years that constitute his parliamentary life.
Far beyond that, his speeches would be found to forecast many
great measures yet to be completed, — measures which he
knew were beyond the public opinion of the hour, but which
he confidently believed would secure popular approval within
the period of his own lifetime, and by the aid of his own
efforts." 1

* Eulogy on James Abram Garfield, (Boston, James R. Osgood & Co.,) pp.
28-30, and 35-37.

xiv PREFACE.

President Garfield's national political life began with
his entry into the House of Representatives, Decern-
ber 7, 1863, when he was thirty-two years old. It will
heighten one's appreciation of these volumes, and give
weight to the words of Mr. Blaine just quoted, to take a
view of his mental equipment for a legislator, and of
some of the larger conditions under which these Works
were produced.

He graduated at the age of twenty-five, with so much .
of general training and culture, and more of general
reading, than was implied by a first honor in a Massa-
chusetts college in 1856. He continued a constant and
general reader to the end of his life. From 1856 to
1 86 1 he was a laborious teacher in an academical school.
His experience there — not now referring to the admin-
istrative but to the strictly didactic function — was of
great value to him in his public life. His admirable
power of rhetorical exposition, both as a forensic and as
a popular orator, in so far as it was the result of art, is
largely traceable to his teacher experience. During the
same years he was in constant practice as a public
speaker on a great variety of subjects, — education, sci-
ence, literature, politics, and religion, — and this practice
was of equal service. He read law with a fellow-teacher
at Hiram, and was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1861.
In i860 and 1861 he served a term in the Ohio Senate,
and, although the youngest, he was one of the most
active and influential members on the floor. One or
two short speeches made in the Senate, which have been
preserved, and a larger number of committee reports
written by him, show that the Ohio Senator needed but
growth and maturity to become the national Represent-
ative. In the college literary society he had given much

PREFACE. XV

attention to parliamentary law ; he improved the oppor-
tunity that the Senate gave to add to his knowledge,
both theoretical and practical ; so that he entered the
House of Representatives a good general parliamen-
tarian.

Edward Gibbon, while bemoaning his service in the
Hampshire militia, said it was of much service to him
in composing his History of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire.^ Much more was President Garfield's
service as a soldier of value to him as a legislator and
statesman. It made him thoroughly acquainted with
the organization and needs of the army, and with the
whole military side of the Rebellion. It caused him to
reflect the more deeply upon its political side, and to
revolve more carefully in his mind the whole question of
reconstruction. More than this, his military service
added very greatly to his knowledge of men and of pub-
lic business, and thereby much increased his mental and
moral equipment for his civil career. Collateral ques-
tions growing out of the war also engaged his attention
somewhat : thus, in his paper entitled " The Currency
Conflict," he speaks of studying finance with Secretary
Chase in the autumn of 1862 (while he was in Washing-
ton awaiting orders, and serving on a court-martial).

The only specific political question of the first magni-
tude that he had mastered before the war mutterines
were heard, had become obsolete when he entered
Congress. " Slavery in the Territories " was the great
question that the Republican party pressed upon the

1 " The discipline and evolutions of a modern battalion gave me a clearer notion
of the phalanx and the legion ; and the captain of the Hampshire Grenadiers (the
reader may smile) has not been useless to the historian of the Roman Empire/' —
Memoirs^ etc.

xvi PREFACE.

intellect and the conscience of the nation, from its organ-
ization in 1854 to its triumph in the Presidential election,
of i860. "What is the constitutional authority of Con-
gress over the domestic institutions of a Territory?" was
a question to be answered partly in view of the nature
and scope of the national Constitution, and partly in view
of the legislative precedents from 1787 onwards. This
was an interesting and vivifying line of study and dis-
cussion. Parallel with it ran the slavery question as a
whole ; for, although the Republican party denied to
themselves any right or purpose to interfere with slavery
in the States, Republican orators and writers did not con-
fine themselves, in discussion, to " Slavery in the Territo-
ries,*' but dwelt also upon the economical, political, and
moral features of slavery itself. Before the year i860,
although following other pursuits than politics, Mr. Gar-
field had possessed himself of all the points in that line
of discussion, — the Ordinance of 1787, the Missouri Com-
promise of 1820, the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, the Kansas-
Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott Decision of 1857,
" Squatter Sovereignty," together with the points of infe-
rior interest. He was a full master of the Republican
argument, and had stated it many times over with much
power and eloquence. The Republican party applied
its cherished principle to the Territories in the act of
June 19, 1862, and then only slavery in the States re-
mained to be dealt with.

Republican opposition to slavery before i860, as an-
nounced in platforms, was an assertion of the right and
duty of Congress to prohibit its spread. This assertion
the Democratic party opposed, at first on old-fashioned
State Rights grounds ; but afterwards the party divided
into those who asserted that the Constitution of its own

PREFACE. xvii

force carried slavery into the Territories, that Congress
had nothing to do with it, and that the people .of the
Territory even could not prohibit it until they came to
form a State government, and those who asserted that
the whole question was left to the people of the Terri-
tory, and that they could prohibit it either by a law of
their local legislature or in the constitution of their
State government (which was the " Squatter Sovereign-
ty " doctrine of Mr. Douglas). The contest was, there-
fore, a revival, in a new form, of the old contest of na-
tional and local powers. Many Republicans of that day
had been brought up in the Democratic party, but the
original and the only original Republican doctrine readily
assimilated with what are called " national views " of the
Federal government. As a matter of course the war
gave the party a strong impulse in the same direction.
How different the spirit and the course of the party
would have been had there been no war, is a curious
subject of speculation. Here it suffices to say that Mr.
Garfield's political training up to 1861, as well as the
native cast of his mind, gave him a predisposition in
favor of Nationalism, and this predisposition the Rebel-
lion greatly strengthened.

The Southern threat of Secession, which so long hung
over the country, was not seriously regarded by Repub-
licans until the winter of 1860-61. They did not believe
there was going to be a war until war began; and then
their most philosophical statesman, Mr. Seward, said it
would be over in ninety days. But just so soon as the
Southern demonstrations following the election of Pres-
ident Lincoln began to impress the North, — and still
more as time wore on and words gave way to blows, —
the whole Northern people, and especially Republicans,

VOL. I. b

xviii PREFACE.

fell to studying the origin, history, and nature of our
national institutions, just as the American Colonists
on the verge of the Revolution, according to Edmund
Burke, fell to reading Blackstone's Commentaries and
other books of law.^ " How did the Union originate?"
" What is the history of the Constitution ? " " What is
the nature of the Federal bond ? " at once became com-
mon questions of absorbing interest. It was not suffi-
cient to oppose physical resistance to Secession ; it must
be shown that Secession had no support in either con-
stitutional or natural law. Now all patriotic men began
to cast about for the real elements of strength in the
National Constitution, and for the lessons for the hour
which real statesmen had taught. Mr. Garfield shared
in this impulse to the full, and was at once led into
the middle of a field of political reading and thought
which before he had barely touched.

For more than a half-century the country had been
moving steadily in one direction. Lord Macaulay wrote
to an American in 1857, "There can, I apprehend, be no
doubt that your institutions have, during the whole of
the nineteenth century, been constantly becoming more
Jeffersonian and less Washingtonian."^ "It is surely
strange," he added, "that, while this process has been
going on, Washington should have been exalted into a
god, and Jefferson degraded into a demon." The Eng-
lish lord seems to have understood that Jefferson was

^ " I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business,
after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported
to the Plantations. The Colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them
for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's Com-
mentaries in America as in England." — Speech on Conciliation with America,
March 22, 1775.

^ Letter to H. S. Randall, Esq., dated Holly Lodge, Kensington, January 18,
1857. See Appendix to Harper's edition of Trevelyan's " Life and Letters of Lord
Macaulay.**

PREFACE. xix

the foil to Washington. Indeed, he says his Ameri-
can correspondent intimated as much to him. But an
intelligent American need not be told that Jefferson
was rather the foil to Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson
believed in democracy and in a confederation; Hamil-
ton favored class influence and representation, but be-
yond any man of his time grasped and set forth the
idea of Nationalism. It was in the very beginning of
the war that the people of the North, as never before,
came to appreciate the fact stated by Guizot : " Ham-
ilton must be classed among the men who have best
known the vital principles and fundamental conditions of

a government There is not in the Constitution

of the United States an element of order, of force, of
duration, which he has not powerfully contributed to
introduce into it, and to cause to predominate." In the
year 1880, Mr. Garfield thus spoke of Hamilton : —

" I cannot look upon this great assemblage, and these old
veterans that have marched past us, and listen to the words
of welcome from our comrade who has just spoken, without
remembering how great a thing it is to live in this Union and
be a part of it. This is New York ; and yonder toward the
Battery, more than a hundred years ago, a young student of
Columbia College was arguing the ideas of the American Revo-
lution and American Union against the un-American loyalty to
monarchy of his college president and professors. By and by
he went into the patriot army, was placed on the staff of Wash-
ington, to fight the battles of his country, and while in camp,
before he was twenty-one years old, upon a drum-head he wrote
a letter which contained every germ of the Constitution of the
United States. That student, soldier, statesman, and great
leader of thought, Alexander Hamilton, of New York, made
this Republic glorious by his thinking, and left his lasting im-
press upon this the foremost State of the Union. And here on
this island, the scene of his early triumphs, we gather to-night,
soldiers of the new war, representing the same ideas of union,

XX PREFACE.

having added strength and glory to the monument reared by
the heroes of the Revolution." *

Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge says the ideas which JefiFerson
and Hamilton embodied have, in their conflicts, made
up the history of the United States. The democratic
principles of the one and the national principles of the
other have prevailed, and have sway to-day throughout
the length and breadth of the land. " But if we go a
step further," he says, " we find that the great Federalist
has the advantage. The democratic system of Jefferson
is administered in the form and on the principles of
Hamilton." ^ This is propounded as the point towards
which American political thought tends, — Democracy
and Nationalism. The expression well describes Mr.
Garfield's own h^bit of political thought. He had no
sympathy with Hamilton's aristocratical principles; he
was as pure a democrat as JefiFerson himself; but he
wanted the democratic system administered in the form
and on the principles of Nationalism. The thoughts of
Hamilton had great influence upon his mind and work.
His eye never wandered from the pole-star of nationality.
He loved Ohio, but he loved the Union more. As he
put it, he rendered allegiance to Washington, not by the
way of Columbus, but in an air line. His country, its
union, its greatness, its purity, its honor, its flag, was
with him an absorbing passion, — as much so as with
Hamilton himself. Hence it is pertinent to add that he
had a sort of literary acquaintance with this great states-
man before the war began ; but his real recognition of
his greatness, and of the strength of his political doc-
trines, dated from certain studies in the first half of the

* Speech to the " Boys in Blue/' delivered in New York, August 6, 1880.
> Alexander Hamilton, p. 283 (Boston, 1882).

PREFACE. xxi

year 1861. Accordingly, he entered Congress, and be-
fore that the army, not simply an ardent patriot, but a
student of history and politics, rooted and grounded in
those elements of order, of force, and of duration which,
according to the distinguished Guizot, Hamilton con-
tributed so powerfully to introduce into the Constitution,
and to cause to predominate.

From the foregoing summary it is easy to see what
was Mr. Garfield's mental equipment for a legislator.
The first and most valuable part of it was general, —
his native ability, his general education, his mental
habits, the training that he had received in educa-
tion, war, and politics, and his general views of our
American governments. National and State, though
these views, as a matter of course, he had not carried
out and applied to many specific questions. More nar-
rowly, he had mastered the Slavery question, upon
which, beyond supporting the Thirteenth Amendment,
he was never called to legislate ; he had a full grasp of
both the military and political sides of the Rebellion,
and had partially thought out some of the other ques-
tions that were so closely connected with the war. This
is about all. At this day there is nothing risked in say-
ing that the late President s most valuable public service
was in the field of economical discussion and legislation :
Currency, the Banks, Taxation, Appropriations, Resump-
tion, and related topics. The greatness and value of this
service is now largely recognized by the public; but it
will be surprising if the publication of these Works
does not greatly strengthen that recognition. Nor is
there anything risked in saying that, when he entered
Congress, he had given no systematic study to any of
these subjects. His grasp of economical science was

xxii PREFACE.

then little more than it was when he left college, al-
though his general reading had given him a wider range
of knowledge. The great knowledge of these subjects,
the sound conclusions, the just principles, of which these
volumes are such striking evidences, were gathered and
wrought out after his Congressional life began. The
same may be said of nearly all the subjects that are here
discussed. That he not only was able to master these
great and difficult financial questions, but was always
able to defend sound principles with new arguments,
fresh information, and original illustrations, at the same
time that he was dealing with the other questions, both
many and difficult, of those eventful years, as well as
maintaining a lively interest in all public questions and
bearing a part in the discussion of many of them, is
at once a striking proof of the greatness of his powers,
of the thoroughness of his training, and of the zeal and
conscientiousness with which he devoted himself to his
legislative duties.

With the mental equipment now described, Mr. Gar-
field entered the national House of Representatives.
He at once took an active part in the debates, as the
Index of the Congressional Globe for the first session of
the Thirty-eighth Congress shows. The four speeches
whose titles are found at the head of the Contents of
this first volume were made that session. This activity
was kept up, with some fluctuation of course, through
the twenty-two sessions that he sat in Congress. It will
be observed that, with a few exceptions, they are his
major Congressional speeches that are presented in
these Works. Only a few of the far greater number
of minor speeches have been drawn out of the Globe and
Record ; and these have been given because they deal

PREFACE. xxiii

with important subjects, and because they show the
speaker's powers in such efforts. Of their kind, these
minor speeches are as perfect as the greater and better-
known speeches upon which his reputation as a debater
rests. Nor must it be supposed that in Congress he was
simply a speech-maker; he was always a conscientious
and laborious committeeman. Then the reader must
remember that every year, from 1864 to 1879, with the
single exception of 1867 when he was in Europe, he
took an active part in each political canvass ; his ser-
vices were in wide request in Ohio and in other States,
and he sometimes made as many as sixty or seventy
addresses in a single campaign. For a number of years
he began his annual canvass with a carefully prepared
speech, which was commonly printed from his own man-
uscript. This was of the nature of a report to his con-
stituents, or to the people of Ohio, of the political history
of the year, and especially of legislation. The campaign
addresses from 1866 to 1872 inclusive constitute this
series. By the side of these lines of activity must be
mentioned his not inconsiderable law practice. In all,
his cases in the United States courts were some thirty in
number, many of them involving new and difficult ques-
tions, which demanded much time and study for their
mastery. The three legal arguments that were fully re-
ported have a place in these volumes. With all the
rest, he was a generous respondent to calls to literary,
ceremonial, and commemorative occasions, and a not
unfrequent contributor to the press. Still, the occa-
sional addresses and papers that are here brought to-
gether were the intellectual recreations of a man whose
work lay in other fields.
The foregoing remarks have not been made simply to

xxiv PREFACE.

generalize the labor that produced these works, and to
enlarge the reader's view of this busy man and life. It
is hoped that, so far as they go, they will set President
Garfield boldly and clearly before the eye of the reader.
Besides, they have an obvious bearing upon the works
themselves. The reader must remember the magnitude
of the labor that President Garfield performed, and the
conditions under which he performed it. These com-
positions are not the essays of a scholar, working at his
leisure in his library ; they are, with few exceptions, the
contributions to current discussion of a very busy man,
who spoke on living questions because he had some-
thing to say. He had extraordinary power in the organ-
ization of thought, shown both in the excellence and
rapidity of his execution ; but many of these speeches
were made under circumstances that taxed his power
to the utmost. He was a hard reader, had a retentive
memory, and was careful to keep his knowledge within
reach ; but, as a matter of course, he often had to use
new information that was hastily gathered, or old infor-
mation that needed further verification.

Mr. A. R. Spofford, the accomplished head of the Li-
brary of Congress, who well knew Garfield's mental hab-
its, has said, in an admirable paper on his intellectual
character and methods : " He was never chary of asking
assistance in laying out the materials for any work he
had to do. He made no mystery of what he was about ;
concealed nothing of his purposes or methpds; drew
freely upon his friends for suggestions ; used his family,
secretaries, and librarians to look up authorities, or, if
he found the time, he looked them up himself. When
he had examined the field as thoroughly as he was
able, he organized his subject in his own mind, and,

PREFACE. XXV

if the speech was to be in Congress, he seldom wrote
more than a few of its leading outlines, leaving the sub-
stance, as well as the diction, to the occasion." This is
very true and just. Mr. Spofford also says : " He was
ever most solicitous to verify every fact and quotation,
and, after speaking ex tempore, he was anxious until he
had carefully corrected the proofs." ^ This, too, is true
and just ; he was a conscientious man in all that he un-
dertook. But the pressure of work or the shortness of
time for preparation often made the verification of the
fact impossible; he frequently had to correct the proofs
in extreme haste, perhaps at midnight when worn out,
and sometimes he could not correct them at all. A
considerable part of the matter collected in these vol-
umes never had any real revision from its author. I
have indeed, verified many of the facts, dates, statistics,
etc., as well as revised the diction when revision seemed
essential ; but I fear that my work will be found a poor
substitute for the scholarship, care, and skill that the
author would have brought to the task had he lived to
be his own editor.

The preparation of these Works for publication was
intrusted to me by Mrs. Garfield. I have earnestly

sought to justify her confidence. It has been a labor
of love ; and no effort has been spared, no toil shrunk

from, that seemed necessary to its fit accomplishment.

I do not doubt that defects and blemishes in my work

will be discovered ; but if the American people shall

think that upon the whole it is not unworthy of the

text, I will be content. Nothing more need be said by

way of explaining these Works, or the manner of their

* •* A Tribute of Respect from the Literary Society of Washington to its late
President, James Abram Garfield,'* pp. i6, 17, 26.

XXVI PREFACE.

preparation for publication. I am not called upon to
discuss President Garfield, or even to characterize him
as thinker, orator, writer, or statesman. Now that I
have put these speeches, addresses, arguments, and pa-
pers in the best form that .1 could, and accompanied
them with such historical commentary as seemed to me
called for, I submit the whole to that public upon which
the distinguished and lamented author so deeply im-
pressed himself.

B. A. HINSDALE.

Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio,
September i, 1882.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.

Pagb

Confiscation of the Property of Rebels i

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, January 28, 1864.

Enrolling and Calling out the National Forces .... 19

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, June 25, 1864.

The Sale of Surplus Gold 35

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, February 18 and March
15, 1864.

Free Commerce between the States 42

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, March 24 and 31, 1864.

1^ Cabinet Officers in Congress 61

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, January 26, 1865.

The Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery ... 73

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, January 13, 1865.

Suffrage and Safety 85

Oration delivered at Ravenna, Ohio, July 4, 1865.

Restoration of the Southern States 95

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, February i, 1866.

American Shipping 118

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, February i, 1866, and
May 25, 1870.

The National Bureau of Education 126

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, June 8, 1866.

xxviii CONTENTS OF VOLUME L

The Jurisdiction of Military Commissions 143

Argument made before the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex
parte L. P. Milligan, W. A. Bowles, and Stephen Horsey, March 6, 1866.

The Public Debt and Specie Payments 183

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, March 16, 1866.

The Memory of Abraham Lincoln 202

Remarks made in the House of Representatives. April 14, 1866.

The Tariff Bill of 1866 205

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, July 10, 1866.

National Politics 216

Speech delivered at Warren, Ohio, September i, 1866.

Reconstruction 243

Remarks made in the House of Representatives on various Occasions.

College Education 265

Address delivered before the Literary Societies of Hiram College, Hiram,
Ohio, June 14, 1867.

The Currency 284

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, May 15, 1868.
Strewing Flowers on the Graves of Union Soldiers . . . 322

Oration delivered at Arlington, Virginia, May 30, 1868.

Taxation of United States Bonds 327

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, July 15, 1868.

Mr. Stevens and the Five-Twenty Bonds 356

Personal Explanation made in the House of Representatives, July 23, 1868.

Indian Affairs 364

Remarks made in the House of Representatives on various Occasions.

Commissioner Wells's Report 383

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, January 19, 186^

Political Issues of 1868 390

Speech delivered at Orwell, Ohio, August 28, 1868.

The Reduction of the Army 408

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, February 9, 1869.

The Smithsonian Institution 430

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, March i, 1869.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I. xxix

The Medtcal and Surgical History of the Rebellion. . . 434

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, March 2, 1869.

Strengthening the Pubuc Credit 439

Remarks made in the House ol Representatives, March j, 1869

The Ninth Census 443

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, April 6, 1869.

The Ninth Census 450

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, December 16^ 1869.

The Canvass in Ohio . . . . ' 477

Speech delivered at Mount Vernon, Ohio, August 14, 1869.

Civil Service Reform 499

Remarks made in the House of Representatives on various Occasions.

The Tariff Bill of 1870 520

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, April i, 1870.

Currency and the Banics 543

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, June 7, 187a

Currency and the Banks 571

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, June 15, 187a •

Currency and the Banks 584

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, June 29, 1870.

Joshua R. Giddings 593

Address delivered at Jefferson, Ohio, July 25, 1870, at the Dedication of
the Giddings Monument.

Political Issues of 1870 610

Speech delivered at Mansfield, Ohio, August 27, 1870.

American Agriculture 632

Address delivered at the Northern Ohio Fair, Cleveland, Ohio, Octo-
ber 12, 1S70.

General George H. Thomas: his Life and Character . . 643

Oration delivered before the Society of the Army of the Cumberland, at
the Fourth Annual Reunion, Cleveland, Ohio, November #5, 1870.

The Right to originate Revenue Bills 674

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, March 3, 187 1.

XXX CONTENTS OF VOLUME T.

The Ku-Klux Act 702

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, April 4, 1871.

The Ohio Campaign of 187 i 732

Speech delivered in Mozart Hall, Cincinnati, August 24, 187 1.

The Fourteenth Amendment and Representation .... 761
Remarks made in the House of Representatives, December 12, 187 1.

APPENDIX.

I. Letter to Major- General Rosecrans 767

II. Letter to Secretary Chase 772

III. Remarks on General Rosecrans 775

THE WORKS

OF

JAMES A. GARFIELD.

CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY

OF REBELS

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 28, 1864.

The confiscation of property as a punishment for treason attracted the
attention of Congress early in the war. August 6, 186 1, an act was ap-
proved, the first section of which authorized and directed the seizure, con-
fiscation, and condemnation of property, of whatever kind or description,
that should be purchased, acquired, sold, given, used, or employed with
intent to aid, abet, or promote insurrection or resistance to the laws of
the United States. The fourth section of the same act declared that all
claims to the labor or service of any slave should be forfeited, provided said
slave should, by the requirement or the permission of his owner, or his
ov^-ner's agent, take up arms against the United States, or perform labor in
or upon any fort, navy- yard, dock, armory, ship, intrenchment, or in any
military or naval service whatsoever against the government and lawful
authority of the United States. July 17, 1862, a much more rigorous and
sweepting act was approved. It provided that every person adjudged
guilty of treason against the United States should suffer death, or, at the
discretion of the court, be imprisoned not less than five years, be fined not
less than ten thousand dollars (the fine to be levied on all property, real
and personal, excluding slaves), and all his slaves, if any, be declared and
made free. This act also provided that, to insure the speedy termination
of the rebellion then in progress, it should be made the duty of the Presi-
dent to cause the seizure of all the estate and property, money, stocks,

VOL. I. I

2 CONFISCATION OF REBEJL PROPERTY.

credits, and effects of certain enumerated classes of persons (six in num-
ber), and to apply and use the same and the proceeds thereof for t|je
support of the Army of the United States. While this bill was pending
in the two Houses, special attention was called to clause 2, section 3,
Article III. of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to
declare the punishment of treason ; but no attainder of treason shall work
corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person
attainted." It became known that President Lincoln held that the
phrase " except during the life of the person attainted " limited the time
for which the forfeiture of real estate might be worked, rather than the
period within which it might be worked. The President, supposing that
the bill would pass in a form disregarding this limitation, prepared a veto
in advance, a copy of which he subsequently ^ laid before the House of
Representatives for their information. Congress passed the bill in the
form proposed, but to avert the veto sent with the bill to the White
House a joint resolution framed to remove the President's objections,
of which this was the last clause : " Nor shall any punishment or pro-
ceedings under said act be so construed as to work a forfeiture of the
real estate of the offender beyond his natural life." Considering the bill
and the resolution "as being substantially one," President Lincoln ap-
proved and signed both.

January 7, 1864, Mr. J. F. Wilson of Iowa introduced into the House
of Representatives a joint resolution explanatory of the Act of July 1 7,
1862, which as reported back from the Judiciary Committee, omitting a
proviso that is immaterial for the present purpose, read thus : " That the
last clause of a joint resolution explanatory of * An Act to suppress in-
surrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the
property of rebels, and for other purposes,' approved July 17, 1862, be,
and the same hereby is, so amended as to read, * Nor shall any punish-
ment or proceeding under said act be so construed as to work a forfeit-
ure of the estate of the offender contrary to the Constitution of the
United States.' " As in 1862, the clause of the Constitution respecting
forfeitures was a main point in the debate.

While Mr. S. S. Cox, then of Ohio, now of New York, was speaking,
January 14, Mr. Garfield said : " I wish to ask my colleague a practical
rather than a legal question. I wish to know whether the objection he
raises to this resolution is not itself obnoxious to this objection. We
punish men for civil and for criminal offences, great and small, in all the
higher and lower courts of the country, by taking their property from
them, so that their children can never have the benefit of it after the
parent's death. Now, while we do this constantly in our courts, by civil
and criminal processes, does not my colleague propose to make an ex-
ception in favor of the crime of treason ? Why should not the children

' July i7i 1862.

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 3

of traitors suffer the same kind of loss and inconvenience as the chil-
dren of thieves and other felons do? I ask the gentleman whether his
position does not involve this great absurdity and injustice ? "

In reply to a question by Mr. Cox, Mr. Garfield said : " I do not see
that in this resolution we do break the Constitution. If the gentleman
can show me that it violates the Constitution, I will vote against it with
him, even though every member of my party votes for it ; that makes no
difference to me. I will say, however, that I had supposed that the
intention of that clause of the Constitution was to prevent the punish-
ment of treason when an individual was declared guilty of it after his
death. I had supposed that that was the purpose of it, and if so, it
seems to me that this bill is not obnoxious to the objection which the
gentleman raises to it.*'

January 28, the House still having under consideration the Wilson
resolution, Mr. Garfield delivered the following speech. February 5,
the House passed the resolution. No action was had in the Senate.
This was the end of the resolution, and also the end of all serious
attempts to legislate further upon the confiscation of the property of
rebels for the punishment of treason.

MR. SPEAKER, — I had not intended to ask the attention
of the House, or to occupy its time on this question of
confiscation at all; but some things have been said touching its
military aspects which make it proper for me to trespass upon
the patience of the House even at this late period of the discus-
sion. Feeling that, fti some small degree, I represent on this
floor the army of the republic, I am the more emboldened to
speak on the subject before us. I have been surprised that, in
so long and so able a discussion, so little reference has been
made to the merits of the resolution itself. Very much of the
debate has had reference to questions which I believe, with all
deference to the better judgment and maturcr experience of
others, arc not germane to the subject before the House.

In the wide range of discussion, the various theories of the
legal and political status of the rebellious States have been
examined, — whether they exist any longer as States, and, if
they do, whether they are in the Union or out of it. It is per-
haps necessary that we take ground upon that question as pre-
liminary to the discussion of the resolution itself. Two theories,
differing widely from each other, have been proposed ; but I
cannot consider either of them as wholly correct. I cannot

4 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

agree with the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania,^ who
acknowledges that these States are out of the Union and now
constitute a foreign people. Nor can I, on the other hand,
agree with those who believe that the insurgent States are not
only in the Union, but have lost none of their rights under the
Constitution and laws of the Union.

Our situation affords a singular parallel to that of the people
of Great Britain in their great revolution of the seventeenth
century. From time immemorial it was the fiction of English
law that the kingship was immortal, hereditary, and inalienable;
that the king was " king by the grace of God " ; that he could
do no wrong, and that his throne could never be vacant. But
the logic of events brought these theories to a practical test
James II. left the throne, threw the great seal of the kingdom
into the Thames, and, fleeing from his own people, took refuge
in France. The great statesmen of the realm took counsel
together on some of the very questions which we are discussing
to-day. One said, ** The king has abdicated ; we will put
another in his place." Another said, "The crown is hereditary;
we must put the heir in his place." The men of books and
black-letter learning answered, Nemo est hares viventis, "The
king is alive, and can have no heir." Another said, " We will
appoint a regent, and consider the kingship in abeyance until
the king returns." The people said, " We will have a king, but
not James." Through all this struggle two facts were apparent:
the throne was vacant, and their king was unworthy to fill it.
The British nation cut through the entanglement of words, and
filled it with the man of their choice. We are taught by this
that, whenever a great people desire to do a thing which ought
to be done, they will find the means of doing it.

In this government we have thrown off the kingly fiction,
but there is another which we are following as slavishly as
ever England followed that. Here, corporations are more than
kings. It is the doctrine of our common law (if we may be said
to have a common law) that corporations have neither con-
sciences nor souls ; that they cannot commit crimes ; that they
cannot be punished ; and that they are immortal. These prop-
ositions are being applied to the rebel States. They are corpo-
rations of a political character, bodies corporate and politic;
they are immortal, and cannot be touched by the justice of law,

* Mr. Stevens.

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 5

or by the power of an outraged government. They hover
around our borders like malignant, bloody fiends, carrying
death in their course ; and yet we are told they cannot be pun-
ished nor their ancient rights be invaded. The people of the
South, under the direction of these phantom States, are moving
the powers of earth and hell to destroy this government. They
plead the order of their States as their shield from punishment,'
and the States plead the impunity of soulless corporations. But
the American people will not be deluded by these theories, nor
waste time in discussing them. They are striking through all
shams with the sword, and are finding a practical solution, as
England did. And what is that practical solution? The Su-
preme Court of the United States has aided us, at this point, in
the Prize Cases decided on March 3, 1863.^ It is there said in
effect —

"That since July 13, 1861, the United States have had full belligerent
rights against all persons residing in the districts declared by the Presi-
dent's proclamation to be in rebellion."

" That the laws of war, whether that war be civil or inter gentesy con-
vert every citizen of the hostile state into a public enemy, and treat him
accordingly, whatever may have been his previous conduct."

"That all the rights derived from the laws of war may now, since
1 86 1, be lawfully and constitutionally exercised against all the citizens
of the districts in rebellion."

The court decided that the same laws of war which apply to
hostile foreign states are to be applied to this rebellion. But in
so deciding they do not decide that the rebellious States are,
therefore, a foreign people. I do not hold it necessary to admit
that they are a foreign people. I do not admit it. I claim, on
the contrary, that the obligations of the Constitution still hang
over them; but by their own act of rebellion they have cut
themselves off from all rights and privileges under the Constitu-
tion. When the government of the United States declared the
country in a state of war, the rebel States came under the laws
of war. By their acts of rebellion they swept away every ves-
tige of their civil and political rights under the Constitution of
the United States. Their obligations still remained; but the
reciprocal rights which usually accompany obligations they had
forfeited.

I 2 Black, 635.

6 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

The question then lies open before us, In a state of war,
under the laws of war, is this resolution constitutional and wise?
I insist, Mr. Speaker, that the only constitutional question in-
volved in the resolution is whether this government, in the
exercise of its rights as a belligerent, under the laws of war, can
or cannot punish armed rebels and confiscate their estates, both
personal and real, for life and forever. This is the only con-
stitutional question before us.

Gentlemen have learnedly discussed the constitutional powers
of Congress to punish the crime of treason. It matters not
how that question is decided ; in my judgment, it has no bear-
ing whatever on the resolution before the House. I will only
say in passing, that the Supreme Court has never decided that
the clause of the Constitution relating to treason prohibits for-
feiture beyond the lifetime of persons attainted. No man in
this House has found any decision of the Supreme Court giving
the meaning to the Constitution which gentlemen on the other
side of the chamber have given to it. They can claim no more
than that the question is res non adjudicata. The arguments
we have heard are sufficient evidence to me, at least, that the
framers of our Constitution intended that Congress should have
full power to define treason, and provide for its punishment;
but the rule of the English common law, which permitted
attainder, corruption of blood, and forfeiture to be declared
after the death of the accused, should not prevail in this coun-
try. To me the clause carries an absurdity on its face, if it be
interpreted to mean that treason, the highest crime known to
law, shall be punished with less severity, so far as it regards the
estate of the criminal, than any other crime or misdemeanor
whatsoever. But, as I before said, the present law of confiscation
is based on the rights of belligerents under the laws of war.

The gentleman from New York^ a few days since, in his
address to the House, gave us a history of the rebellions which
have occurred in this country. I wish to call his attention to
one of our rebellions, a very important one, which he did not
notice, and in which the question of confiscation was very fully
and very practically discussed. This fact has not, I believe,
been brought to the attention of the House. Do gentlemen
forget that the Union had its origin in revolution, and that con-
fiscation played a very important part in that revolution? It

* Mr. Fernando Wood.

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 7

was a civil war; and the Colonies were far more equally divided
on the question of loyalty than the States of the South now are
on the questions of to-day. Many of the thirteen Colonies had
almost equal parties for and against England in that struggle.
In New York the parties were of nearly equal strength. In
South Carolina there were probably more Royalists than Whigs.
Twenty thousand American Tories appeared in the armies
against us in the Revolutionary struggle. Thirty Tory regiments
served in the British line. Our fathers had to deal with these
men, and with their estates. How did they solve the problem?
I have looked into the history of its solution, and find it full
of instruction. Every one of the thirteen States, with a single
exception, confiscated the real and personal property of Tories
in arms. They did it, too, by the recommendation of Congress.
Not only so, but they drove Tory sympathizers from the coun-
try; they would not permit them to remain upon American
soil. Examine the statutes of every State, except New
Hampshire, where the tide of battle never reached, and you
will find confiscation laws of the most thorough and sweeping
character. When our commissioners were negotiating the
treaty of peace, the last matter of difference and discussion was
that of confiscated property. The British commissioners urged
the restoration of confiscated estates, but Jay and Franklin and
their colleagues defended the right of confiscation with great
ability, and refused to sign the treaty at all if that was to be a
condition. While these negotiations were pending, the States
memorialized Congress to guard against any concession on the
point in dispute, and our commissioners were instructed by
Congress to admit no conditions which would compel the res-
toration of confiscated estates. The final settlement of the ques-
tion will be found in the fifth article of the treaty of peace as
it now stands recorded, which provided that Congress should
recommend to the several Colonies to restore confiscated prop-
erty ; but it was well understood by both parties that it would
not be done. Congress passed the resolution of recommenda-
tion as a matter of form ; but no State complied, or was ex-
pected to comply with it. It was, however, provided that no
further confiscations should be made, and that Tories should be
permitted to remain in America for twelve months after the
treaty.
In the debates of the English House of Lords in 1783, up-

8 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

on the treaty of peace, Lord Shelbume frankly admitted that
the Loyalists were left without better provision being made for
them, ** from the unhappy necessity of public affairs, which in-
duced the extremity of submitting the fate of their property
to the discretion of their enemies." " I have," he said, " but
one answer to give the House; it is the answer I gave my
own bleeding heart. A part must be wounded, that the whole
of the empire may not perish. If better terms could be had,
think you, my lord, that I would not have embraced them?
/ had but the alternative either to accept the terms proposed or
continue the war!* Lord Shelburne also declared, that " with-
out one drop of blood spilt, and without one fifth of the ex-
pense of one year's campaign, happiness and ease can be given
them in as ample a manner as these blessings were ever in their
enjoyment." The Lord Chancellor defended the treaty on other
grounds, but said, if necessary, " Parliament could take cogni-
zance of their case, and impart to each suffering individual that
relief which reason, perhaps policy, certainly virtue and reli-
gion, required." ^

Thus Revolutionary confiscation passed into history by the
consent and agreement of both belligerents. Its principles
were also defended by our government after the adoption of
the Constitution. In 1792 Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of
State, in answer to some complaints of the British government,
reviewed the whole question at great length and with great
ability. I ask my colleague ^ to notice these extracts relating
to belligerent rights, which he has just been discussing.

" It cannot be denied that the state of war strictly permits a nation to
seize the property of its enemies found within its own limits or taken in
war, and in whatever form it exists, whether in action or possession.
This is so perspicuously laid down by one of the most respectable
writers on subjects of this kind, that I shall use his words : * Since it is
a condition of war, that enemies may be deprived of all their rights, it
is reasonable that everything of an enemy's, found among his enemies,
should change its owner and go to the treasury. It is, moreover, usually
directed, in all declarations of war, that the goods of enemies, as well
those found among us as those taken in war, shall be confiscated. If we
follow the mere right of war, even immovable property may be sold and
its price carried into the treasury, as is the custom with movable property.

1 See Sabine's American Loyalists, Vol. I. pp. 101, 102 (Boston, 1864).

2 Mr. Finck of Ohio.

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 9

But in almost all Europe, it is only notified that their profits, during the
war, shall be received by the treasury ; and the war being ended, the
immovable property itself is restored, by agreement, to the former
owner.' " ^

"Exile and Confiscations. — After premising that these are lawful
acts of war, I have shown that the fifth article [of the treaty of 1 783]
was recommendatory only, its stipulations being, not to restore the confis-
cations and exiles, but to recommend to the State Legislatures to restore
them ; — that this word, having but one meaning, establishes the intent
of the parties ; and, moreover, that it was particularly explained by the
American negotiators that the Legislatures would be free to comply with
the recommendation or not, and probably would not comply ; — that the
British negotiators so understood it ; — that the British ministry so un-
derstood it ; and the members of both Houses of Parliament y as well
those who approved as who disapproved the article." '

Thus the Revolutionary fathers, both before and after the
adoption of the Constitution, defended confiscation.

The Tories who fled to England called upon the Crown for
support. A commission was appointed to examine their claims
and provide for their wants. It is a significant fact, that of the
vast numbers of Tories perhaps not a thousand remained in
this country after the war. The people would not endure their
presence. They were driven out, and took refuge in all quar-
ters of the globe. They colonized New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia, and were scattered along the borders of Canada. The
States would show no favor, even to the few who came back
under the provisions of the treaty, and refused them the right
of voting, or of holding office or property. It was well known
that there could be no peace between them and our loyal
people. Their history is a sad record of infamy, obscurity,
and misery. Some exhibited their vengeful hate long after the
war was over. Girty and his associates, who murdered Craw-
ford in the Indian wars of 1782, were Tories of the Revolution.
Bowles and Panton, leaders among the Creek Indians, and who
started the Florida troubles, which resulted in a long and bloody
conflict in the swamps of that region, were Tories. As a class,
they went out with the brand of Cain upon them, and were not
permitted to return. One State alone relented. South Caro-

* Jefferson's Works, Vol. III. p. 369. The writer quoted by Jefferson is Bynker-
shoek.

« Ibid., Vol. III. p. 423.

A

lO CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

Una passed an act of oblivion, restored a large part of the con-
fiscated estates, and permitted the Tories after a short time to
vote and hold office. Her policy has borne its bitter fruit.
Her government has hardly been entitled to be called republi-
can. The spirit of monarchy and disloyalty has ruled her coun-
cils, and has at last plunged the republic into the most gigantic
and bloody of rebellions.

Let us take counsel from the wisdom of our fathers. Is it
probable that the same men who confiscated all the property of
armed Tories would, a few years later, establish it as a funda-
mental doctrine of the Constitution that no confiscation can be
made beyond the lifetime of the attainted traitor? Is it proba-
ble that men who had just done what they stubbornly held to
be right should enact as a part of the supreme law of the land
that the same thing should never be done again ?

I now come more directly to consider the policy involved
in the resolution before us. Landed estates, Mr. Speaker,
are inseparably connected with the peculiar institution of the
South. It is well known that the power of slavery rests in
large plantations; that the planter's capital drives the poor
whites to the mountains, where liberty always loves to dwell,
and to the swamps and by-places of the South ; and that the
bulk of all the real estate is in the hands of the slave-owners
who have plotted this great conspiracy. Let me give you an
instance of this, one of a thousand that might be given. In the
town of Murfreesboro', Rutherford County, Tennessee (a place
made sacred and glorious forever by the valor of our army),
there are 14,493 acres of land under enclosure owned by six-
teen men ; three of the sixteen men own more than ten thou-
sand of the acres. One of the three owns half of the whole
township of Murfreesboro*. And this is only a specimen of
what these men of the South are to the lands of the South.
Only a few hundred men own the bulk of the land in any
Southern State ; they hold the lands and own the slaves. These
men plotted the rebellion and thrust it upon us. They have
had the political power in their hands, and if you permit them
to go back to their lands they will have it again. The laws of
nature, the laws of society, cannot be overcome by the resolu-
tions of Congress. Grant a general amnesty, let these men go
back to their lands, and they will again control the South.
They have so long believed themselves born to rule, that they

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. u

will rule the poor man in the future, as in the past, with a rod
of iron. The landless man of the South has learned the lesson
of submission so well that when he is confronted by a landed
proprietor he begins to be painfully deferential ; he is facile and
dependent, and less a man, than if he stood on a little spot of
God's earth covered by his own title-deed.

Sir, if we want a lasting peace, if we want to put down this
rebelHon so that it shall stay forever put down, we must put
down its guilty cause ; we must put down slavery ; we must take
away the platform on which slavery stands, — the great landed
estates of the armed rebels of the South. Strike that platform
from beneath its feet, take that land away, and divide it into
homes for the men who have saved our country. I put it to
this House as a necessity which stares us in the face. What, let
me ask you, will you do with the battle-fields of the South ?
Who own them? Who own the red field of Stone River? Two
or three men own it all. And who are these two or three men?
Rebels, every one, — one of them a man who once sat in this
chamber, but who is now a leader in the rebel army. Will you
let hint come back and repossess his land ? Will you ask his
permission when you go to visit the grave of your dead son who
sleeps in the bosom of that sacred field? If the principles of
the gentlemen on the other side be carried out, there is not one
of the great battle-fields of the war (save Gettysburg, which lies
yonder on this side of the line) that will not descend for all time
to come to the sons of rebels, — to men whose fathers gained a
bad eminence by fighting against their country, and who will
love those fathers for affection's sake, and love rebellion for their
fathers' sake. God forbid that we should ever visit those spots,
made sacred by the blood of so many thousand brave men, and
see our enemies holding the fields and ploughing the graves of
our brethren, while the sweat of slaves falls on the sod which
ought to be forever sacred to every American citizen !

The history of opinion and its changes in the army is a very
interesting one. When the war broke out, men of all parties
sprang to arms by a common impulse of generous patriotism, —
which I am glad to acknowledge here in the presence of those in
whose hearts that impulse seems now to be utterly dead. I
remember to have said to a friend when I entered the army,
"You hate slavery; so do I; but I hate disunion more. Let
us drop the slavery question and fight to sustain the Union.

12 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

When the supremacy of the government has been re-established,
we will attend to the other question." I said to another, " You
love slavery. Do you love the Union more? If you do, go
with me ; we will let slavery alone, and fight for the Union.
When that is saved, we will take up our old quarrel, if there is
anything left to quarrel about." I started out with that position,
taken in good faith, as did thousands of others of all parties.
But the army soon found that, do what it would, the black
phantom met it everywhere, — in the camp, in the bivouac, on
the battle-field, — and at all times. It was a ghost that would
not be laid. Slavery was both the strength and the weakness of
the enemy : his strength, for it tilled his fields and fed his legions ;
his weakness, for in the hearts of slaves dwelt dim prophecies
that their deliverance from bondage would be the outcome of
the war. Mr. Seward well says, in an official despatch to our
Minister at the Court of St. James, " Everywhere the American
general receives his most useful and reliable information from
the negro, who hails his coming as the harbinger of freedom."
These ill-used men came from the cotton-fields; they swam
rivers, they climbed mountains, they came through jungles in
the darkness and storms of the night, to tell us that the enemy
was coming here or coming there. They were our true friends
in every case. There has hardly been a battle, a march, or any
important event of the war, where the friend of our cause, the
black man, has not been found truthful and helpful, and always
devotedly loyal. The conviction forced itself upon the mind
of every soldier that behind the rebel army of soldiers the black
army of laborers was feeding and sustaining the rebellion, and
there could be no victory till its main support should be taken
away.

" You take my house when you do take the prop
That doth sustain my house.'*

The rebellion falls when you take away its chief prop, slavery
and landed estates.

Gentlemen on the other side, you tell me that this is an Aboli-
tion war. If you please to say so, I grant it. The rapid cur-
rent of events has made the army of the republic an Abolition
army. I can find in the ranks a thousand men who are in
favor of sweeping away slavery to every dozen that desire to
preserve it. They have been where they have seen its malevo-
lence, its baleful effects upon the country and the Union, and

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY, 13

they demand that it shall be swept away. I never expect to
discuss the demerits of slavery again, for I deem it unnecessary.
The fiat has gone forth, and it is dead unless the body-snatchers
on the other side of this House shall give it galvanic life. You
may say to me that slavery is a divine institution; you may
prove to your own satisfaction from the word of God, perhaps,
that slavery is a beneficent institution. I will say to you that
all this may be entirely satisfactory to your mind, but your be-
loved friend slavery is no more. This is a world of bereave-
ments and changes, and I announce to you that your friend has
departed. Hang the drapery of mourning on the bier ! Go in
long and solemn procession after the hearse, if you please, and
shed your tears of sorrow over the grave ; but life is too short
to allow me to waste an hour in listening to your tearful eulogy
over the deceased.

I come now to consider another point in this question. I
hold it a settled truth that the leaders of this rebellion can never
live in peace in this republic. I do not say it in any spirit of
vindictiveness, but as a matter of conviction. Ask the men who
have seen them and met them in the darkness of battle and all
the rigors of warfare : they will tell you that it can never be. I
make, of course, an exception in favor of that sad array of men
who have been forced or cajoled by their leaders into the ranks
and subordinate offices of the rebel army. I believe a truce
could be struck to-day between the rank and file of the hostile
armies. I believe they could meet and shake hands joyfully
over returning peace, each respecting the courage and manhood
of the other. But for the wicked men who brought on this
rebellion, for the wicked men who led others into the darkness,
such a day can never come. Ask the representatives of Ken-
tucky upon this floor, who know what the rebellion has been in
their State, who know the violence and devastation that have
swept over it, and they will tell you that all over that State neigh-
bor has been slaughtered by neighbor, feuds fierce as human hate
can make them have sprung up, and so long as revenge has an
arm to strike, its blows will never cease to be struck, if such men
come back to dwell where they dwelt before. This is true of
every State over which the desolating tide of war has swept. If
you would not inaugurate an exterminating warfare, to continue
while you and I and our children and children's children live,
set it down at once that the leaders of this rebellion must be

14 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

executed or banished from the republic. They must follow the
fate of the Tories of the Revolution.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the army is a unit on these great
questions ; and I must here be permitted to quote from one of
nature's noblemen, a man from Virginia, with the pride of the
Old Dominion in his blood, but who could not be seduced
from his patriotism, — one who, amid the storm of war that
surged against him at Chickamauga, stood firm as a rock in the
sea, — George H. Thomas. That man wrote a communication
to the Secretary of War nearly a year ago, saying in substance,
for I quote from memory : " I send you the enclosed paper
from a subordinate officer; I endorse its sentiments, and I will
add, that we can never make solid progress against the rebellion
until we take more sweeping and severe measures; we must
make these people feel the rigors of war, subsist our army upon
them, and leave their country so that there will be little in it for
them to desire." Thus spoke a man who is very far from being
what gentlemen upon the other side of the House are pleased
to call an Abolitionist, or a Northern fanatic ; and in saying this,
he spoke the voice of the army.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and amazed beyond measure at
what I have seen in this House. Having been so long with
men who had but one thought upon these great themes, it is
passing strange to me to hear men talking of the old issues and
discussions of four years ago. They forget that we live in
actions more than in years. They forget that sometimes a
nation may live a generation in a single year; that the experi-
ence of the last three years has been greater than that of centu-
ries of quiet and peace. They do not seem to realize that we
are at war. They do not seem to realize that this is a struggle
for existence, — a terrible fight of flint with flint, bayonet with
bayonet, blood for blood. They still retain some hope that
they can smile rebellion into peace. They use terms strangely.
In these modern days words have lost their significance. If a
man steals his thousands from the Treasury, he is not a thief;
O, no ! he is a " defaulter." If a man hangs shackles on the
limbs of a human being and drives him through life as a slave,
it is not man-stealing, it is not even slavery ; it is only " another
form of civilization." We are using words in that strange way.
There are public journals in New York city, I am told, that
never call this a rebellion, — it is only a "civil commotion," a

CONTFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 15

"fraternal strife." It was described more vigorously in this
chamber a few days ago as ** an inhuman crusade against the
South." I had thought the day of " Southern brethren *' and
•* wayward sisters " had gone by, but I find it here in the high
noon of its glory. One would suppose from all we hear that
war is gentle and graceful exercise, to be indulged in in a quiet
and pleasant manner. I have lately seen a stanza from the
nursery rhymes of England which I commend to these gentle-
hearted patriots who propose to put down the rebellion with
soft words and paper resolutions : —

" There was an old man who said. How
Shall I flee from this horrible cow ?
I will sit on the stile
And continue to smile,

Which may soften the heart of this cow."

•

I tell you, gentlemen, the heart of this great rebellion cannot
be softened by smiles. You cannot send commissioners to
Richmond, as the gentleman from New York ^ proposes, to
smile away the horrible facts of this war. Not by smiles, but
by thundering volleys, must this rebellion be met, and by such
means alone. I am reminded of Macaulay's paragraph in
regard to the revolution in England : —

" It is because we had a preserving revolution in the seventeenth cen-
tury that we have not had a destroying revolution in the nineteenth. It
is because we had freedom in the midst of servitude that we have order
in the midst of anarchy. For the authority of law, for the security of
property, for the peace of our streets, for the happiness of our homes,
our gratitude is due, under Him who raises and pulls down nations at
his pleasure, to the Long Parliament, to the Convention, and to William
of Orange." 2

Mr. Speaker, if we want a peace that is not a hollow peace,
we must follow that example, and make thorough work of this
war. We must establish freedom in the midst of servitude, and
the authority of law in the midst of rebellion. We must fill
the thinned ranks of our armies, assure them that a grateful
and loving people are behind to sanction and encourage them,
and they will go down against the enemy bearing with them
the majesty and might of a great nation. We must follow the
march of the army with a free and loyal population ; we must

1 Mr. Wood. 2 History of England, Vol. II. p- 510 (Harper's cd., 1856).

l6 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

protect that population by the strong arm of military power.
The war was announced by proclamation, and it must end by
proclamation. We can hold the insurgent States in military
subjection half a century if need be, until they are purged of
their poison, and stand up clean before the country. They
must come back with clean hands if they come at all. I hope
to see in all those States the men who have fought and suffered
for the truth, tilling the fields on which they pitched their tents.
I hope to see them, like old Kaspar of Blenheim, on the sum-
mer evenings, with their children upon their knees, and pointing
out the spot where brave men fell and marble commemorates it.
Let no breath of treason be whispered there. I would have no
man there, like one from my own State, who came to the army
before the great struggle in Georgia, and gave us his views of
peace. He came as the friend of Vallandigham, the man for
whom the gentlemen on the other side of the House from my
State worked and voted. We were on the eve of the great
battle. I said to him, •* You wish to make Mr. Vallandigham
Governor of Ohio. Why?" He replied, "Because, in the
first place," using the language of the gentleman from New
York, " you cannot subjugate the South, and we propose to
withdraw without trying it Ipnger. In the next place," we will
have nothing to do with this Abolition war, nor will we give
another man or another dollar for its support." ** To-morrow,"
I continued, ** we may be engaged in a death-struggle with the
rebel army that confronts us, and is daily increasing. Where is
the sympathy of your party? Do you want us beaten, or Bragg
beaten?" He answered that they had no interest in fighting,
that they did not believe in fighting. I asked him further,
" How would it affect your party if we should crush the rebels
in this battle, and utterly destroy them ? " " We would probably
lose votes by it." ** How would it affect your party if we should
be beaten? " ** It would probably help us in votes."

That, gentlemen, is the kind of support the army is receiving
in what should be the house of its friends. That, gentlemen, is
the kind of support these men are inclined to give this country
and its army in this terrible struggle. I hasten to make honor-
able exceptions. I know there are honorable gentlemen on the
other side who do not belong to that category, and I am proud
to acknowledge them as my friends. I am sure they do not
sympathize with these efforts, whose tendency is to pull down the

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY, 17

fabric of our government by aiding their friends over the border
to do it. Their friends^ I say ; for when the Ohio election was
about coming off, in the army at Chattanooga there was more
anxiety in the rebel camp than in our own. The pickets had
talked face to face, and the rebels made daily inquiry how the
election in Ohio was going. And at midnight of the 13 th of
October, when the telegraphic news was flashed down to us, and
it was announced to the army that the Union had sixty thousand
majority in Ohio, there arose a shout from every tent along the
line on that rainy midnight, which rent the skies with jubilees,
and sent despair to the heart of those who were ** waiting and
watching across the border." It told them that their colleagues,
their sympathizers, their friends, I had almost said their emissa-
ries, at the North, had failed to sustain themselves in turning the
tide against the Union and its army. And from that hour, but
not till that hour, the army felt safe from the enemy behind it.
Thanks to the 1 3th of October ! It told thirteen of my colleagues
that they had no constituencies. I deprecate these apparently
partisan remarks; it hurts me to make them; but it hurts me
more to know that they are true. I would not make them but
that I wish to unmask the pretext that these men are in earnest,
and laboring for the vigorous prosecution of the war and the
maintenance of the government. I cannot easily forget the
treatment which the conscription bill received this morning.^
Even the few men in the army who voted for Vallandigham
wrote on the back of their tickets, ** Draft! draft! " But their
representatives here think otherwise.

I conclude by returning once more to the resolution before
us. Let no weak sentiments of misplaced sympathy deter us
from inaugurating a measure which will cleanse our nation and
make it the fit home of freedom and a glorious manhood. Let
us not despise the severe wisdom of our Revolutionary fathers
when they served their generation in a similar way. Let the
republic drive from its soil the traitors that have conspired
against its life, as God and his angels drove Satan and his host
from heaven. He was not too merciful to be just, and to hurl
down in chains and everlasting darkness the " traitor angel "
who ** first broke peace in heaven," and rebelled against Him.

^ See the following Speech, on "Enrolling and Calling out the National Forces,"
June 25, 1864.

VOL. 1. 2

1 8 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

On the 9th of April, 1864, in reply to Mr. Cox, of Ohio, Mr. Garfield
made these remarks : —

My colleague misrepresents me — I presume unintentionally
— when he says that I have, on two occasions, declared my
readiness to overleap the Constitution. That I may set myself
and him right on that question, I will say, once for all, that I
have never uttered such a sentiment. I believe, sir, that our
fathers erected a government to endure forever; that they
framed a Constitution which provided, not for its own disso-
lution, but for its amendment and perpetuation. I believe that
that Constitution confers on the executive and legislative de-
partments of the government the amplest powers to protect
and defend this nation against all its enemies, foreign and do-
mestic ; that we are clothed with plenary power to pursue reb-
els in arms, either as traitors, to be convicted in the courts and
executed on the gallows, or as public enemies, to be subjected
to the laws of war and destroyed on the battle-field. We are at
liberty to adopt either policy, or both,' as we deem most expe-
dient. But, sir, gentlemen on the other side of this chamber
profess to be greatly embarrassed by constitutional restrictions.
They tell us that the Constitution confers upon us no right to
coerce a rebellious State ; no right to confiscate the property
of traitors ; no right to employ black men in the military ser-
vice ; no right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus ; no right to
arrest spies; no right to draft citizens to fill up the army; in
short, no right to do anything which is indispensably necessary
to save the nation and the Constitution. It was in answer to
such claims that I said, in substance, if all these things were so,
I would fall back on the inalienable right of self-preservation,
and overleap the barriers of the Constitution ; but I would leap
into the arms of a willing people, who made the Constitution,
and who could, in the day of dire necessity, make other weapons
for their own salvation. The nation is greater than the work of
its own hands. The preservation of its life is of greater mo-
ment than the preservation of any parchment, however replete
with human wisdom. I desire to read an extract from an
authority which, I am sure, the gentleman will acknowledge,
Thomas Jefferson.^ This extract states more ably than I can
the very doctrine I have advocated.

* Here Mr. Garfield read from a letter to J. B. Colvin, dated September 20, iSio^
which may be found in Jefferson's Works, Vol. V. p. 542.

ENROLLING AND CALLING OUT THE

NATIONAL FORCES.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

June 25, 1864.

The first call for troops to suppress the Southern Rebellion was made
on April 15, 1861, under the laws authorizing the President to call out
the militia of the several States to repel invasion and to suppress insur-
rection (especially the law. of February 28, 1795). July 22, Congress
authorized the President to accept the service of 500,000 volunteers, for
a period not exceeding three years ; and shortly after, this authorization
was duplicated. Thus, early in the war the government was committed
to volunteering as the means of filling up the army. To stimulate volun-
teering, Congress voted, besides pay and clothing, a bounty of ^loo to
each volunteer who should serve two years, or during the war if sooner
ended. As the war went on, additional inducements were offered, some-
times by law and sometimes by order of the War Department. A short
step towards putting the military power of the republic more fully at the
disposal of the government was taken in the act of July 17, 1862, which
gave the President fuller control of the militia of the States. August 4 of
the same year, the President called for 300,000 militia for nine months,
and directed that the States should be drafted to fill up their quotas if
necessary. March 3, 1863, the first Enrolment Act was passed. This
gave the President power to draft, but several classes of able-bodied
male citizens were exempted, and the drafted persons had the option
of serving, furnishing an accepted substitute, or paying a commutation
authorized by the Secretary of War, not to exceed J300, for the procu-
ration of a substitute. October 17, 1863, 300,000 men were called for
under this act. On the ist of February, 1864, a further draft of 500,000
men was ordered ; March 14, another draft for 200,000. The frequency
of these calls, as well as the large number of men called for in the suc-
cessive proclamations, is explained in great degree by the looseness of
the act of March 3, 1 863, according to which large numbers of men com-
petent for military service were exempted, and according to wliich those

20 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES,

actually drafted could avoid the service by payment of the commu-
tation. Practically, that law tended to fill the treasury rather than the
army; and it was called a financial rather than a military measure.
Its operation was well explained by Mr. Garfield in some remarks made
on February 3, 1864 : —

" I wish to call the attention of the committee — and if I could I
would address my remarks only to those who are in favor of an effective
conscription bill of some sort — to some facts in relation to the opera-
tion of the existing law. I will state in a few sentences the direct results
of that law, so far as it has been enforced.

" On the 14th day of December last, there had been drawn from the
wheel in the late draft 290,000 names. Of these, 73,000 were exempted
in consequence of disability, and 74,000 for other reasons, as laid down
in the second section of the present conscription law; 41,000 paid com-
mutation ; 24,000 furnished substitutes ; and 1 1 ,000 went to the field.
Several thousand more were thrown out as having been improperly en-
rolled. Therefore it will be seen that, out of 290,000 names drawn from
the wheel, the government got 11,000 men who went themselves, and
24,000 who went as substitutes. Look at the result : 290,000 men
placed out of the enrolment list for three years to come, of whom only
1 1,000 are in the army! How many men would you get at that rate
fi-om the entire enrolment list of three million? If the entire number
were drafted to-morrow under the present law, you would get 350,000
men, and then you have pledged the faith of the government that for
three years to come not another man in the United States shall be com-
pelled to enter the military service. That would be the effect of the
present law if executed in full to-morrow. I say again, that under that
law you can obtain but 350,000 men by substitute and by draft, and
then you will have forsworn yourselves against calling for another man in
the United States for the army by any compulsory process."

The speculative spirit engendered by the inflation of the currency
and the prodigal expenditures of the war was nowhere more prominent
than in the business of recruiting. Congress fostered this spirit by voting
liberal bounties, and the War Department outran Congress by offering
bounties without the authority of law. In the mean time Congress was
struggling with the difficulties of the situation. \ December 3, 1863, it
was provided by joint resolution, " That no bounties, except such as are
now provided by law, shall be paid to any persons enlisting after the fifth
day of January next." But in the same resolution money was voted to
pay the unauthorized bounties up to that time. Then, a few days later,
by joint resolution (approved January 13, 1864) it was voted to extend
the time for which these high bounties shall be paid to the first day
of March. Mr. Garfield's was one of the two votes cast in the House
against this resolution. He thus explained his vote : —

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 21

" The request of the President and the War Department was to con-
tinue the payment of bounties until the ist of February next ; but the
resolution before the House proposes to extend the payment until the
I St of March. And while the President asks us to continue the payment
of bounties to veteran volunteers only, this resolution extends it to all
volunteers, whether veterans or raw recruits. If the resolution prevails,
it seems to me we shall swamp the finances of the government before
the I St of March arrives. I cannot consent to vote for a measure which
authorizes the expenditure of so vast a sum as will be expended under
this resolution, unless it be shown absolutely indispensable to the work
of filling up the army. I am anxious that veterans shall volunteer, and
that bounties be paid to them. But if we extend the payment to all
classes of volunteers for two months to come, I fear we shall swamp the
government. Before I vote for this resolution, I desire to know whether
the government is determined to abandon the draft. If it be its policy
to raise an army solely by volunteering and paying bounties, we have
one line of policy to pursue. If the conscription law is to be anything
better than a dead letter on the statute-book, our line of policy is a very

different one I am sorry to see in tliis resolution the indication

of a timid and vacillating course. It is unworthy the dignity of our
government and our army to use the conscription act as a scarecrow,
and the bounty system as a bait, alternately to scare and coax men into
the army. Let us give liberal bounties to veteran soldiers who may
re-enlist, and for raw recruits use the draft."

A law approved on February 24, 1864, greatly reduced the exemp-
tions made by the law of March, 1863, and narrowed the commutation
clause ; but still failed to meet the emergency. While Congress was
thus halting between two opinions, and the army was on the point of
serious reduction through the expiration of enlistments, President Lin-
coln himself went before the House Military Committee and stated the
pressing necessity for men to take the places of those whose enlistments
would soon expire. He asked for legal power to draft men to fill the
ranks. A bill embodying these more positive ideas was introduced into
the House by Mr. Schenck of Ohio, June 13, 1864. The House still
hesitated, and amendments emasculating the bill were promptly carried.
Mr. Garfield protested that the government was in want of men, and not
of money ; that the existing law had, in the main, failed to secure the
requisite reinforcements ; that the commutation clause of the enrolment
act could not be retained, and the army be filled up at the same time.
"This Congress," said he, "must sooner or later meet the issue face to
face, and I beheve the time will soon come, if it has not now come,
when we nuist give up the war or give up the commutation. I believe
the men and the Congress that shall finally refuse to strike out the com-
mutation clause, but retain it in its full force as it now is, will sub-

22 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

stantially vote to abandon the war. And I am not ready to believe,
I will not believe, that the Thirty-eighth Congress has come to such a
conclusion."

Better counsels finally prevailed. Without following the bill of June 13
through its devious history, it suffices to say that at the very end of the
session an efficient law passed, bearing the tide, "An Act further to
regulate and provide for the enrolling and calling out the National
Forces, and for other Purposes," and was approved July 4, 1864.
Pending this bill, Mr. Garfield delivered the following speech.

MR. SPEAKER, — The honorable gentleman* who has just
taken his seat has seen fit to refer to a remark which
I made on the last occasion when the proposed repeal of the
commutation clause was before the House. I do not think he
intended to misrepresent me, yet he did so. I did not take it
upon myself to criticise the individual acts or votes of any mem-
ber of this House. But, sir, it is my right to animadvert upon
the action of this House and the effects of its policy. This right
I have hitherto used in such manner as I deemed proper, and
while I have the honor of a seat in this body I shall continue to
use it. On that occasion I did, as the gentleman states, declare
it as my opinion that we had reached a point in the progress of
events where we must decide, to repeal the commutation clause
or give up the successful prosecution of the war. I did not
then believe, nor do I now believe, that the vote then taken
was such a decision ; but I did believe, and I yet believe, that
if the policy indicated by that vote shall be persisted in, if the
commutation clause be permanently retained in the law, if
no more efficient law be passed this session for filling up our
armies and supplying the waste of battle and disease, the rebel-
lion cannot be put down during the lifetime of the Thirty-eighth
Congress. I go further. If this Congress shall leave the law
as it now stands, and the next Congress repeats the folly, I do
not believe the rebellion will be put down during the continu-
ance of the next Congress, nor at all while the incubus of com-
mutation weighs down the present law. In my judgment, that
clause stands directly in the way of filling up our armies.

Mr. Speaker, it has never been my policy to conceal a truth
merely because it is unpleasant. It may be well to smile in the

1 Mr. Odell, of New York.

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 23

face of danger, but it is neither well nor wise to let danger
approach unchallenged and unannounced. A brave nation, like
a brave man, desires to see and measure the perils which threaten
it It is the right of the American people to know the neces-
sities of the republic when they are called upon to make sacri-
fices for it It is this lack of confidence in ourselves and the
people, this timid waiting for events to control us when they
should obey us, that makes men oscillate between hope and
fear, — now in the sunshine of the hilltops, and now in the
gloom and shadows of the valley. To such men the morning
bulletin which heralds success in the army gives exultation and
high hope ; the evening despatch announcing some slight dis-
aster to our advancing columns brings gloom and depression.
Hope rises and falls by the accidents of war, as the mercury of
the thermometer changes by the accidents of heat and cold.
Let us rather take for our symbol the sailor's barometer, which
faithfully forewarns him of the tempest, and gives him unerring
promise of serene skies and peaceful seas.

No man can deny that we have grounds for apprehension and
anxiety. The unexampled magnitude of the contest, the enor-
mous expenditures of the war, the unprecedented waste of battle,
bringing sorrow to every loyal fireside, the courage, endurance,
and desperation of our enemy, the sympathy given him by the
monarchies of the Old World as they wait and hope for our de-
struction, — all these considerations should make us anxious and
earnest ; but they should not add one hue of despair to the face
of an American citizen, — they should not abate a tittle of his
heart and hope. The spectres of defeat, bankruptcy, and repu-
diation have stalked through this chamber, evoked by those
gentlemen who see no hope for the republic in the arbitra-
ment of war, no power in the justice of our cause, no peace
made secure by the triumph of freedom and truth.

Mr. Speaker, even at this late day of the session, I will beg
the indulgence of the House while I point out some of the
grounds of our confidence in the final success of our cause,
while I endeavor to show that, though beset with danger, we
still stand on firm ground, and though the heavens are clouded,
yet above storm and cloud the sun of our national hope shines
with steady and undimmed splendor. History is constantly
repeating itself, making only such changes of programme as
the growth of nations and centuries requires. Such struggles

24 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

as ours, and far greater ones, have occurred in other ages, and
their records are written for us. I desire to refer to the exam-
ple of our kindred across the sea, in their great struggles at the
close of the last and the beginning of the present century, to
show what a brave nation can do when their liberties are in dan-
ger and their national existence is at stake.

There were two periods in the history of that contest when
England saw darker days than any that we have seen, or, I
hope, ever shall see. Consider her condition in 1797. For ten
years the tide of mad revolution had been sweeping over Europe
like a destroying pestilence, demolishing thrones and principali-
ties ; and, while many evils were swept away, chaos and anarchy
were left in its track. In 1792 France declared war against the
world; and in February, 1793, specifically declared war against
England. At that time the British debt was $1,268,668,045,
and its annual interest $45,225,304. The population of the
United Kingdom was less than twelve millions, including Ire-
land, — Ireland then, as now, " the tear in the eye of Great Brit-
ain,"— a source of weakness rather than strength. The spirit
of revolution pervaded the kingdom from collieries to court.
The throne distrusted the people, and the people were jealous
of' the throne. In 1794 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended,
against an opposition in Parliament more determined and far
abler than its suspension met in our Congress two years ago.
In 1796 three and a quarter million Catholics in Ireland were
organized to revolt against the government, to be aided by a
French fleet of forty sail, with twenty-five thousand French sol-
diers on board. But for the storm which dispersed the fleet, the
revolt must have been successful. In the same year the naval
power of England was threatened with dissolution by a wide-
spread mutiny in the fleet. Ship after ship deserted the fleet
•off" Cadiz and in the North Sea. The Channel fleet ran up the
red flag of mutiny from almost every masthead, and was drawn
up in line of battle across the mouth of the Thames, prepared
to sail to London if the demands of the mutineers were not
acceded to. It required all the firmness of the king and his
government to save the city and the navy. In 1797, oppressed
with financial disaster, the Bank of England suspended specie
payments, and paper money (an immense circulation of which
crowded the country) was the legal currency for twenty-two
years thereafter. In that fifth year of the war, as Alison says, —

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 25

" Everything seemed to be falling at once. Their armies had been
defeated, the Bank had suspended payment, and now the fleet, the pride
and glory of England, appeared on the point of deserting the national

colors The public creditors apprehended the speedy dissolution

of government, and the cessation of their wonted payments from the
treasury. Despair seized upon the boldest hearts ; and such was the
genera] panic that the three per cents were sold as low as forty-five, after
having been nearly one hundred before the commencement of the war.
Never during .the whole contest had the consternation been so great^ and
never was Britain placed so near the verge of ruin." ^

All this time France, with frenzied activity and enormous
power, was dealing her deadly blows. In Parliament the great
Fox was leading a powerful opposition against the government.
The record of English divisions would answer for our own.
Alison says : —

" So violent had party spirit become, and so completely had it usurped
the place of patriotism or reason, that many of the popular leaders had
come to wish anxiously for the triumph of their enemies. It was no
longer a simple disapprobation of the war which they felt, but a fervent
desire that it might terminate to the disadvantage of their country, and
that the Republican might triumph over the British arms. They thought
that there was no chance of Parliamentary reform being carried, or any
considerable addition to democratic power acquired, unless the ministry
were dispossfeed, and, to accomplish this object, they hesitated not to
betray their wish for the success of the inveterate enemy of their country.
These animosities produced their usual effect of rendering the moderate or
rational equally odious to both parties ; whoever deplored the war was re-
puted a foe to his country ; whoever pronounced it necessary was deemed
a conspirator against its liberty, and an abettor of arbitrary power." ^

Against such an opposition and such discouragements, the
like of which we have not yet seen, England, with a brave king,
a wise ministry, and a courageous Parliament, rose to the level
of the great occasion, passed laws both for volunteering and
draft, filled the ranks of her army and navy to more than three
hundred and fifty thousand men, poured out her wealth with a
lavish hand, renewed the great contest, and continued it, not
four years, but five times four years longer.

But England saw darker days than those of 1797. In the
beginning of 181 2 Napoleon had risen to the height of his

* History of Europe, ist ser., Vol. IV. p. 236 (Edinburgh and London, i860).
« Ibid.. Vol. IV. p. 141.

26 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

marvellous power. The continent of Europe was at his feet.
By victorious diplomacy and still more victorious war he had
founded an empire which seemed to defy human power success-
fully to assail it. Every coalition against him had been broken,
every alliance had failed. More than half the nations of Europe
followed his conquering eagles. From the Vistula to the pillars
of Hercules, except the rocky triangle of the Torres -Vedras,
where Wellington was held at bay by five times his number
under a great Marshal of France, the Continent presented an
unbroken front against England. Russia remained in frozen
isolation, a spectator of the contest. Only Prussia and Austria
followed the lead of England. Let us consider her condition at
this second crisis of her fate.

Her population, including Ireland, was about seventeen millions.
Her debt had been more than trebled since the beginning of the
war, and now reached the enormous sum of $4,ocx),ooo,ooo.
Specie payments being still suspended, her paper currency was
more than ever expanded. In the beginning of the war, she
raised from her mines and coined about $30,ooo,ocx) in gold.
But the revolution which swept over South America had stopped
the working of the mines, so that before the close of the war
the annual British coinage was less than $12,000,000. Her navy
was crippled by the war, her commerce ruined by the French
Decrees and the Non-importation Act of the United States.
Her imports exceeded her exports by $65,000,000, and the
balance was paid in gold. For two years her harvests had
failed, and in 1 812 she paid $21,000,000 in gold for foreign
grain to feed her people. In that year alone her exports de-
clined $140,000,000. The heavy subsidies to her allies and the
payments to her own armies on the Continent were in gold.
In 1 81 2 she sent $30,000,000 in gold, for which she paid thirty
per cent premium, to Wellington's army in the Peninsula. Her
bonds had so depreciated that a loan of ;^6o increased her debt
;^ioo. A short time previous, in the midst of increasing dis-
aster, the reason of the king gave way, and he sat a lunatic on
the throne of a kingdom which seemed ready to go down with
him in the general ruin. This event added a new and compli-
cated question to the distractions of Parliament, and gave a new
weapon to the opposition.

It is not necessary for my present purpose to inquire whether
justice leaned to the side of England or her adversary. It is

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 27

enough to know that she believed it was on her part a struggle
for self-existence and for the constitutional liberty of the world.
Inspired with this conviction, she stood like a giant at bay ; in
high debate she reasserted the justice of her cause, summoned
anew, not the frantic energy of despair, but the inexhaustible
reserve of calm Anglo-Saxon courage, the unfathomed resources
of English faith and English pluck (a proud share of which I
trust this nation has inherited), and in the face of unexampled
discouragement and appalling disaster, laying under contribu-
tion all the resources of her realm, went out again to meet the
man of destiny, whose victories were numbered by hundreds,
and whose eagles were followed by half the world. Increasing
both taxes and loans, she raised and expended for that year
$550,ooo,ocx). She filled her navy to one hundred and twenty-
five thousand men, and before the year had ended six hundred
and forty-eight thousand men were arrayed under her banners.
Seconded by the indomitable spirit of her people, her armies
emerged from the gloom of that nineteenth year of the war,
and, marching with unfaltering step through three more bloody
years and the carnage of Waterloo, she planted her victorious
standards on the battlements of Paris, and gave peace to
Europe.

And can we, the descendants of such a people, with such a
history and such an example before us, — can we, dare we, falter
in a day like this? Dare we doubt? Should we not rather say,
as Bolingbroke said to his people in their hour of peril: ** Oh,
woe to thee when doubt comes ! it blows like a wind from the
north, and makes all thy joints to quake. Woe, indeed, be to
the statesmen who doubt the strength of their country, and
stand in awe of the enemy with whom it is engaged ! '*

At the same period, one of the greatest minds of England de-
clared that three things were necessary to her success : —

1. To listen to no terms of peace till freedom and order were
established in Europe.

2. To fill up her army and perfect its organization.

3. To secure the favor of Heaven by putting away forever the
crime of slavery and the slave trade.

Can we learn a better lesson? Great Britain in that same
period began the work which ended in breaking the fetters of
all her bondmen. She did maintain her armies and her finances,
and she did triumph. We have begun to secure the approval

28 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

of Heaven by doing justice, though long delayed, and securing
to every human being in this republic freedom henceforth and
forever.

Mr. Speaker, it has long been my settled conviction that it
was a part of the Divine purpose to keep us under the pressure
and grief of this war until the conscience of the nation should
be aroused to the enormity of its great crime against the black
man, and full reparation should be made. We entered the
struggle, a large majority insisting that slavery should be let
alone, with a defiance almost blasphemous. Every movement
toward the recognition of the negro's manhood was resisted.
Slowly, and at a frightful cost of precious lives, the nation has
yielded its wicked and stubborn prejudices against him, till at
last blue coats cover more than one hundred thousand swarthy
breasts, and the national banner is borne in the smoke of battle
by men lately loaded with chains, but now bearing the honors
and emoluments of American soldiers. Dare we hope for final
success till we give them the full protection of soldiers? Like
the sins of mankind against God, the sin of slavery is so great
that " without the shedding of blood there is no remission."
Shall we not secure the favor of Heaven by putting it com-
pletely away?

Shall we not fill up our armies? Shall we not also triumph?
Was there in the condition of England in 1812 a single element
essential to success which we do not possess tc-day? Observe
the contrast. Her population was less than seventeen millions;
ours is twenty-five millions in the loyal States alone. Her debt
was more than $4,000,000,000, its annual interest $161,000,000;
our debt is $1,720,000,000, and its annual interest $71,000,000.
The balance of trade was $65,000,000 against her; in 1863 the
balance was $79,621,872 in our favor. She bought grain from
foreign nations to feed her people ; we feed our own, and send
an immense surplus to foreign markets. Her mines yielded her
twelve or fifteen millions of bullion annually; ours are now
yielding $120,000,000 a year. More than half of all her pay-
ments were made in coin purchased at a heavy premium ; we pay
nothing in coin but $50,000,000 of our interest, and the salaries
of our ministers and consuls abroad. She crossed the sea to
meet her enemy on foreign soil ; we meet ours on our own soil,
in a country that has been ours since the foundation of the
republic. She fought to maintain her rank among the nations

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 29

of Europe; we fight to maintain our existence among the
nations of the earth, and to preserve liberty and union for
ourselves and our children's children.

If the example of England fails to inspire us, let us not, I be-
seech you, forget our fathers of the Revolution. We have seen
no day so dark as were whole years in their struggle. We have
seen no captures of Philadelphia, no winter quarters at Morris-
town, no blood-stained snow at Valley Forge. Out of a popu-
lation of three millions, one quarter of whom adhered to the
enemy, they sent to the field 395,892 men, — one for every
seven women and children in the States. Were we to double
our armies to-day, we should still fall far behind that propor-
tion. Who can compare our resources with theirs, and not
blush at the mention of failure, the suggestion of defeat? Do
we, with power almost unlimited, with resources as yet un-
touched, the balance of trade in our favor, every branch of
industry flourishing, and everything in its proper place except
the Congress of the United States, — do we talk gloomily of
the issue of this contest? I believe, sir, that the worth and
manhood of a nation must be tried by the same standard that
tests the worth and manhood of individual men. We can never
know what stuff a man is made of till we see him brought face
to face with some desperate issue, some crisis of his life in
which he must peril all in one noble effort, or shrink ignobly
away into the coward's oblivion. If, summoning all his untried
mankood, and flinging into the scale his honor, his fortune, and
his life, he goes down to the trial, we know that to him " there 's
no such word as fail." So, sir, a nation is not worthy to be
saved if, in the hour of its fate, it will not gather up all its
jewels of manhood and life, and go down into the conflict, how-
ever bloody and doubtful, resolved on measureless ruin or
complete success.

" Si fractus illabatur orbis,
Impavidum fericnt ruinae."

But no ruin awaits such a nation. The American people
have not yet risen to "the height of the great argument," nor
will they until those who represent them here are ready with
unselfish devotion to walk in the rugged path that leads to

victory.

If we will not learn a lesson from either England or our Rev-
olutionary fathers, let us at least learn from our enemies. I have

30 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

seen their gallantry in battle, their hoping against hope amid
increasing disaster; and, traitors though they are, I am proud
of their splendid courage when I remember that they are
Americans. Our army is equally brave, but our government
and Congress are far behind theirs in earnestness and energy.
Until we go into war with the same desperation and abandon-
ment which mark their course, we do not deserve to succeed,
and we shall not succeed. What have they done ? What has
their government done, — a government based, in the first
place, on extreme State rights and State sovereignty, but which
has become more centralized and despotic than the monarchies
of Europe? They have not only called for volunteers, but they
have drafted. They have not only drafted, but cut off both
commutation and substitution. They have gone further. They
have adopted conscription proper, — the old French conscrip-
tion of 1797, — and have declared that every man between
sixteen and sixty years of age is a soldier. But we stand here
bartering money for blood, debating whether we will fight the
enemies of the nation or pay three hundred dollars into its
treasury.

Mr. Speaker, with this brief review of the grounds of our hope,
I now ask your attention to the main proposition in the bill
before the House, the repeal of the commutation clause. Going
back to the primary question of the power to raise armies, I
lay it down as a fundamental proposition, as an inherent and
necessary element of sovereignty, that a nation has a right to
the personal service of its citizens. The stability and power
of every sovereignty rest upon that basis. Why can the
citizen claim the protection of the government ? Because
rights and duties are reciprocal, and the government owes him
protection only as he gives sanction and power to the law by
his personal service and the contribution of his wealth. Hence,
in the name of law, he can demand protection. Hence also, in
the name of law, his government can demand a contribution
from his purse and his personal service. There are two great
muscles that move the arm of sovereignty, — the treasury and
the army. If a nation has the right to protect itself, it must
have the right to use these two powers. It may, therefore, take
money from the citizen in accordance with the forms of law.
It may take every dollar of every citizen, if so much should be
necessary, in order to support and maintain the government.

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 31

And if the nation has the right to the citizen's money, has it
not equally the right to his personal service? Coercion accom-
panies the tax-gatherer at every step. The law of revenue rests
upon coercion. Without that same coercive power no govern-
ment could put a soldier into the .field. As well might we
claim that the legal basis of the treasury is the contribution-
box, as that the legal basis of the army is the volunteering
system.

I go a step further. Every nation under heaven claims the
right to order its citizens into the ranks as soldiers. Great Brit-
ain has always held that power behind her volunteering system.
In 1798 she made a law, first to offer bounties to volunteers, and
then to draft her enrolled citizens into the army. No such
thing as commutation was known. Gentlemen talk as though
the right to pay three hundred dollars in lieu of personal service
was one of the inalienable rights guaranteed to us by the Con-
stitution. They forget that until the 3d of March, 1863, there
was never known in this country such a thing as paying money
in lieu of personal service. England never indeed had a con-
scription, but she did provide for a draft. Under the law of
1798, she raised her militia for local purposes, and drafted from
the militia into the regular army in the field.

Let us look for a moment at our own history in regard to
this subject. How were the three hundred and ninety-five
thousand men raised for the war of the Revolution? Every
Colony had laws for calling out its militia and compelling them
to serve. By a statute of Maryland a citizen was liable to a
fine of ;^io,ooo for a refusal to obey the command when
ordered into the field. By a statute of Massachusetts as early
as 1693, severe punishments were provided for those who re-
fused to turn out for military duty when ordered. The spirit
of personal independence and the protection of individual
rights were at least as carefully guarded by the founders of the
republic as they are by this generation, and yet they never
doubted the power of the States to compel the citizen to serve
in the field. It makes no matter whether it be done by the
President, or the government of a State, the same principle is
involved.

I affirm again that every one of the States raised men by
draft. It was a presumed common law right. The Constitution
of the United States recognizes the same principle by declaring

32 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

that " Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insur-
rections, and repel invasions " ; * and on the 29th of September,
1789, an act was approved (the second military law under the
Constitution), giving to the President full power to call forth
the militia to protect the frontiers against the Indians. That
law was extended by the act of May 2, 1792, so as to give him
the power to send the militia beyond the limits of their States.
By the act of February 28, 1795, his power was still further ex-
tended, and a heavy penalty was affixed for disobedience of the
law. In the case of Houston v, Moore,^ and also in Martin v,
Mott,^ the Supreme Court decided that the law is constitutional,
and that the President has the constitutional power to compel
a citizen to do military duty. In the war of 18 12 the President
called on the States for troops, and when a sufficient number
did not volunteer they were obtained by draft. In 1839, when
the dispute occurred between this country and England in refer-
ence to the boundaries of the State of Maine, a law was passed
(March 3, 1839) authorizing the President to call forth one
hundred thousand men for six months, a period double the
length allowed by former laws. Again, the draft law in the war
of 18 1 2 allowed substitutes, but not commutation. The bill be-
fore us permits drafted men to obtain substitutes, but not to pay
commutation. I say, then, since the beginning of the govern-
ment,— still further, since the beginning of the Revolution, —
still further, since the founding of the Colonies, — the right of
sending citizens into the military service has been repeatedly
asserted and exercised; and up to the 3d of March, 1863, such
a thing as a payment of money in lieu of military service was
never known in this country. Gentlemen must, therefore,
abandon the claim that in repealing this clause we are interfer-
ing with immemorial usage and inalienable rights. Even the
law of 1863 did not regard the three hundred dollars as an
equivalent for military service. It provided that the three hun-
dred dollars should be paid " for the procuration of a substi-
tute," and was supposed to be a sum sufficient for that purpose.
It is now far from sufficient, and the law is even more unjust
than at first. If the three hundred dollars would always pro-
cure a substitute, the military service would not suffer by retain-
ing the clause.

* Art. I. Sect. 8. « 5 Wheaton's Reports, i. •12 Ibid. 19.

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 33

But what are the facts ? The President, the Secretary of War,
our own knowledge of affairs, tell us that, if it be retained, it
will be impossible to fill the places of the eighty-five thousand
hundred-days men who will go out of service in a few weeks,
and of the three-years regiments whose terms of service are
every day expiring. Moreover, we must allow something for
the waste of battle, the waste of disease, and all the incidents of
war. And now, while our armies are advancing gloriously,
while our campaigns are prosperous, while there is no immedi-
ate cause for alarm, let us look into the future and provide for
its emergencies, let us hold up the hands of the President and
remove this obstacle from the law, as he recommends. Gentle-
men doubt what the people will say and how they will feel. I
have learned that the people are braver than their representa-
tives. I would much sooner take counsel of the American
people, arid especially the American army, than of their repre-
sentatives when an election is at hand. Would to God there
were no Presidential election to cast its shadow over this battle
summer, and no Congressional elections overshadowing this
House! Perhaps we might then see with clearer vision the
interests of the country, and strike toward them with bolder
hands. This I do know, that the loyal people have laid up a
great oath on the altar that they will never rest till the rebellion
is overthrown, and they will take all necessary means to hew
their way through to this purpose. I know that the people
whom I represent have united their destiny with the destiny of
the Union, and will share its fortunes, whatever betide it. I
have not asked them, but I believe they will respond cheerfully
to this measure. But whatever they may do, I shall strive to
remove all obstacles to the increase of the army.

I ask gentlemen who oppose this repeal, why they desire to
make it easy for citizens to escape from military duty. Is it
a hardship to serve one's country? Is it disgraceful service?
Will you, by your action here, say to the soldiers in the field,
" This is disreputable business ; you have been deceived ; you
have been caught in the trap, and we will make no law to put
anybody else in it?" Do not thus treat your soldiers in the
field. They are proud of their voluntary service ; and if there
be one wish of the army paramount to all others, one message
more earnest than any other which they send back to you, it is
that you will aid in filling their battle-thinned ranks by a draft

VOL. I. 3

34 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

that will compel lukewarm citizens who prate against the war
to go into the field. They ask not that you will expend large
bounties in paying men of third-rate patriotism, while they went
with no other bounty than that love of country to which they
gave their young lives a free offering, but that you will compel
these eleventh-hour men to take their chances in the field
beside them. Let us grant their request, and by a steady and
persistent effort we shall in the end, be it near or remote, be it
in one year or ten, crown the nation with victory and enduring
peace.

THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

February i8 and March 15, 1864.

On the i8th of Februaiy^ 1864^ a joint resolution was reported to the
House from the Committee of Ways and Means, authorizing the Secretary
of the Treasury from time to time, at his discretion, to sell any gold coin
in the treasury over and above the amount which, in his opinion, might
be required by the government for the payment of interest on the public
debt. Mr. Garfield made the following remarks, the first that he made
upon a financial subject in the House of Representatives.

MR. SPEAKER, — I propose to detain the House but a
few moments on the question before it, as all I wish is to
state, as clearly as possible, the conditions of the proposition as
they exist in the resolution.

By the present law gold can come into the treasury of the
United States through the customs and various other avenues.
But there is only one avenue by which it goes out, namely, the
payment of the interest on the public debt. There was in the
treasury on Saturday last $18,900,000 in gold. It is coming
into the treasury at the rate of four or five hundred thousand
dollars a day ; at the lowest estimate it is four hundred thou-
sand dollars. If this rate continues until the ist of July next,
we shall have $74,107,213.

Mr. Boutwell. I wish to ask the gentleman whether the Secretary of
the Treasury, in his estimate of the receipts and expenditures for the
fiscal year 1864-65, does not show that our interest account, which is to
be met by the payment of specie, will exceed ^85,000,000, while our re-
ceipts through the custom-house will amount to but ^70,000,000, showing
a deficiency for the fiscal year 1864-65 of ;$ 15,000,000,

I should have answered the gentleman in my next sentence
had he not interrupted me. The Secretary of the Treasury re-

36 THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD.

ports that there will become due at various times, ending with
the 1st of July next, $23,601,943, to be paid in gold. That is
every dollar of coin which the treasury of the United States
will be obliged to pay up to that time. Now, there will remain
a surplus in the treasury, on the basis of the present receipts,

— and the receipts have greatly exceeded the estimates, — on
the 1st of July next, of $50,505,270, and, according to the pres-
ent practice of the government, no disposition of it will be
made.

Mr. Fernando Wood. I desire to ask the gentleman upon what basis*
or upon what data, he estimates the receipts of gold from the custom-
house, or any other sources, up to the ist of July next

The estimates are based upon what we have been receiving
for several months past, and the fact that the months immedi-
ately to come are always better than the winter months. I base
the estimates upon what we have been receiving from day to
day for many weeks. These estimates may be too large, but
that would not alter the principle involved. No one doubts
that there will be a surplus.

I say, then, that by taking the average, or a sum rather below
the present average, — and we have every indication that the
average will rather increase than decrease in the coming months,

— wc shall have on the ist of July $50,500,000 in gold in the
treasury, with no law for paying it out. Now, what is the re-
sult? There is, probably, according to the estimates of gentle-
men, scattered through the country in the feet of old stockings,
locked up in trunks, put away in bureaus, laid away under the
heads of beds and in vaults of banks, $200,000,000 of gold. I
suspect that to be a large estimate, judging from the statements
of trade.

Now, sir, on the ist of July next one quarter of all the gold in
the United States will be locked up in the vaults of the United
States Treasury, and lying there as dead matter. Every dollar
that goes in there leaves the amount in circulation a dollar less,
raises the price of gold, disturbs the market, and disgraces our
credit; and yet, because it is locked up in the treasury, and we
will not pass a law sending it out, our credit must go down and
down, further and further, as Mr. Lamar and his coadjutors in
the Rebel States desire it shall go down, and as his coadjutors
in the Northern States seem to desire it shall go down. They

THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD. 37

are talking in the most anxious manner here — witness the last
speech to which we have listened — of returning to a specie
basis. Do not gentlemen upon this floor know that no great
war was ever waged in modern times with specie? It is one of
the settled and inevitable laws of trade, that great wars must be
conducted with a paper currency, and not with gold.

Now, why do we ask that this great amount of capital shall
be, from time to time, liberated? For the best reason in the
world. Generally I would not interfere with the laws of trade ;
they are as immutable as the laws of nature ; but I would now
interfere with them because they are not in a natural and normal
condition ; they are in a condition superinduced by the necessi-
ties of war, and it is to counteract this abnormal state of trade
that we are disposed to let loose this gold so as to keep up the
credit of the government. What has so changed the character
of gold? It is hardly to be called the representative of value;
it is fast becoming a commodity, instead of a medium of ex-
change ; and if the war continues very much longer it will be
merely a commodity, and not a circulating medium. It is well
known that, when paper currency comes into general use, it
expels gold, and that such is its natural tendency. Our gold is
scattered over the border, driven to Canada, sent abroad, and
the amount actually in use in the business of the country is so
small that, if we reduce it by locking up $50,000,000 in the
vaults of the treasury, we shall create a panic that will ruin the
business of the country.

The gentleman from Ohio ^ has offered an amendment, that
this surplus shall be paid to the soldiers in the field. I remem-
ber the political capital that some gentlemen on the other side
of the House attempted to make on the subject of paying sai-
lors and soldiers in coin ; and I remember a remark which was
made, and which what I see in the galleries this morning almost
prohibits me from repeating, but that a sense of justice requires
that I should repeat. It was charged on the other side of the
House, that, if we did not pay our sailors and soldiers in gold,
their wives would become prostitutes. I stood here as a man
abashed ; I stood amazed and ashamed that I belonged to a
body in which such an utterance could be made about the loyal
women of this country.

Every gentleman upon this floor knows well that it is impos-

1 Mr. Long.

38 THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD.

sible now to return to a specie basis. Every man who has
looked into the condition of the country knows that it is impos-
sible, without utter prostration and ruin, to attempt to return to
a specie basis at this time. It becomes us, then, to use the gold
that we have to keep up the credit of the country, and not to
destroy it ; and I do not propose to be deterred by references
to all those laws and resolutions that have been passed hitherto
in regard to the policy of the country.

I am not in such unfortunate circumstances as* the gentleman
from New York * who has just spoken. I am under no pres-
sure from any quarter, from any particular source, from any
particular person ; I am under no instructions from any man,
in office or out of office, how to vote, think, or act upon this
subject I have not been honored with that pressure, and I
am therefore free to act as it seems to me the pressure of the
country and its interests require; and I ask gentlemen now
whether they are willing to help to carry out the scheme of
Lamar, of Georgia, to help to reduce the value of our paper
currency, until we shall be ruined, as the Southern Confederacy
is being ruined, by its finances, rather than by its battles.

There are two elements which decide the question of war.
One is military, the other is financial. The man who destroys
the finances of a country ruins it as thoroughly as he who de-
stroys its army. It becomes us, therefore, while we replenish
our armies on the one hand, to maintain the credit of the treas-
ury on the other. For that purpose I believe this measure is
wise. I know it ought to be guarded; and any amendment
that will make it more carefully worded, and that will protect us
from all chances of fraud or corruption on the part of govern-
ment officials, I shall be glad to vote for. But I am unwilling
that we should defeat the purpose of the resolution, and lock up
this money, on the old idea that money locked in vaults is as
good as money in circulation.

On the 15th of March following, the measure having been to the Sen-
ate and returned to the House, Mr. Garfield made these remarks. As
finally adopted and approved, the joint resolution authorized the Secre-
tary of the Treasury to anticipate the payment of interest, and to " dis-
pose of any gold in the treasury not necessary for the payment of inter-

1 Mr. Brooks.

THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD. 39

est on the public debt/' provided the obligation to create the sinking fund
should not be impaired.

Mr. Speaker, — I design to detain the House but a few
minutes with what I have to say on this subject ; but I wish to
state what seems to me the present condition of the question.
There have been so many things said, we have wandered so far
from the proposition before the House, that I wish to restate
the question as it now lies before us.

This House passed a joint resolution authorizing the Secre-
tary of the Treasury to dispose of the surplus gold by antici-
pating the payment of interest on the public debt. There were
two principal reasons assigned why we should dispose of this
gold : first, that it was accumulating on our hands faster than
we had any legal means of using it; and secondly, that, by
thus accumulating, it was causing a continually increasing strin-
gency in the gold market, with a consequent rise of price. It
seemed therefore just, that, as by law we had interfered with
the gold market, we should by law provide for curing that
interference. We all recognize the fact, that, if gold continues
to advance, it very much injures, not only the people at large,
but also the government and its securities. It has been proved
by more accurate statistics than we had before us on the 8th
of March, when the House acted on this matter, that by the
17th of July next there will be nearly thirty million dollars of
surplus gold in the treasury. That has been tested by the most
careful estimates possible, not only here, but in the other wing
of the Capitol.

Now, Mr. Speaker, three ways for returning this gold into the
general circulation have been proposed. The first is by direct
sale, — the proposition that comes to us from the Senate.
The second is by anticipating the payment of interest. And
the third is by creating a sinking fund, as already provided
for by law. As to the second and third, I have only a word
to say.

To create a sinking fund as provided by law is at present sim-
ply an absurdity. I see no wisdom in buying up the bonds of
the government when we are now borrowing $2,cxx),cxx) a day
to meet our current expenses. It makes the government enact
the farce of borrowing money of itself. It is true that we are
required by law to create a sinking fund, but no one can charge

40 THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD.

us with a breach of faith if we refrain from creating such a
fund while we are still borrowing. We can repeal that law alto-
gether without any violation of the faith of the country.

Now, suppose we anticipate the interest on the public debt,
with or without rebate, as provided by the original bill which
passed this House on the 8th instant. Everybody knows that
no man would receive prepayment and allow an abatement of
interest. Why? Money in the New York market is now worth
but little more than five per cent, and of course no man will
call in his money drawing a larger rate of interest and immedi-
ately reinvest it at a lower rate. Therefore we may as well
dismiss from our minds any hope that we can get a rebate by
anticipating the interest on our bonds ; and the proposition to
undertake to pay our debts before they are due, while at the
same time we are borrowing money to pay debts overdue, is so
absurd that a plain statement of it is its best refutation.

Another objection to the bill as it passed the House is, that
the remedy is inadequate to meet the difficulty we seek to ob-
viate. If we conclude to anticipate the payment of interest, the
process will be so slow as to have no appreciable effect upon
the gold market It takes weeks to make the small monthly
payments of interest as they become due ; and if we undertake
to pay them before they are due, the process will be still slower,
and will utterly fail to bring down the price of gold. Let me
read an extract from one of the daily journals, published the
morning after the passage of the bill by the House, showing
how it was regarded by the commercial men of New York. I
read from the New York Commercial Advertiser, of March 9th.

" After four o'clock, the news of the passage of Mr. Boutwell's gold
bill reached the market. The bill merely authorizes the Secretary of
the Treasury to anticipate the payment of interest on the public debt
from time to time, with or without a rebate of interest upon the coupons,
as to him may seem expedient. In this amended form it passed, ninety
against thirty-four, — a very strong vote, • which seems to fvyi the policy
of Congress. This amounts to nothing in the way of relief, since it is of
no practical value whether the ^3,000,000 due on the ist of April, and
the ^15,000,000 due on the ist of May, are begun to be paid now or
then. It will take a month at least to pay the 1815,000,000. When
;S6,ooo,ooo was due on November ist, it required the whole month to
complete the payments, and the price of gold was not affected at all.
The Secretary lias now the same duty as before, to apply the gold to

THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD. 41

the purchase of stock for the sinking fund, a process which would freely
deplete the treasury. On the promulgation of the passage of this bill,
gold, which had been dull at 163 J, immediately rose to 164^, and in
the evening sales reached 165I.

" This morning the assemblage at the gold rooms was prompt, and
the opening price was 165 J.

"The demand continued very active, and the rate soon touched 168,
when a little reaction set in, and it declined to 16 7 J, and again recov-
ered to 168^ to i68| at 12 M.

" The rate for exchange went up in the same proportion, and sales
were made at 181 J, but this rate is still lower than gold."

Now see the result. The business men of New York, who
are perfectly familiar with the whole subject, took it up, and the
moment the bill was passed declared what the result would be.
They knew how perfectly futile would be its effect on the price
of gold, and up went gold eight or nine per cent in a single day.
They saw by how large a majority the bill had passed the House,
and they considered that majority an indication that the House
would insist upon its action. It seems to me there is a practi-
cal lesson, which this House should not fail to profit by, in
the consequences which followed our action when this bill was
originally passed.

Wc have, therefore, proposed as a remedy for the present
difficulty growing out of the accumulation of gold in the treas-
ury; first, the creation of a sinking fund; next, the anticipation
of the payment of the interest on the public debt; neither of
which, as I have already shown, is at all adequate to meet the
present emergency. We have, then, in the third place, the
proposition to place in the hands of the Secretary of the Treas-
ury the power, after reserving in the treasury an amount of
gold sufficient to provide for the payment of the interest in coin,
to take the large balance, and so wield it as to knock down the
price of gold; and if at the same time he knocks down the gold
speculators, they will meet a just reward for their presumptuous
sins. ** Let them not have dominion over us." Sir, it will be
a power that can be wielded for good, not only now, but at any
time in the future, as the nature of the case may require. I be-
lieve that the proposition contained in the amendment of the
Senate is, on the whole, the best that we can adopt

FREE COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES,

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

March 24 and 31, 1864.

Towards the close of the war, the urgent need of additional railroad
facilities between Washington City and the Northern and Eastern States
became painfully apparent. January 6, 1864, the House of Represent-
atives created a special committee of nine members, " with authority to
examine into the expediency of the establishment of a new route for
postal and other purposes" between Washington and New York. Of
this committee Mr. Garfield was a member. Various propositions were
submitted at that session ; but the only one that seriously arrested the
attention of the House and the country was a bill reported from the
Military Committee, March 9, " to declare certain roads military road's
and post-roads." This bill was introduced in response to a petition of
the Raritan and Delaware Bay Railroad Company, asking to have their
road declared a lawful structure, and a post and military road of the
United States. This was the case, as stated by Mr. H. C. Deming, of
Connecticut, who introduced the measure and opened the debate, March
17, 1864.

" The petitioners have constructed a raib-oad from Port Monmouth,
near Sandy Hook, to Atsion, which lies nearly east of Philadelphia, and
it is connected by the Batsto branch with the Camden and Atlantic Rail-
road Company. Thus, by means of the road they have constructed, by
means of the Batsto branch, and by means of the Camden and Atlantic
Railroad Company, they have a railroad constructed from Port Mon-
mouth, near Sandy Hook, to Camden, which is opposite the city of
Philadelphia. They have also a steamboat running fbom the city of New
York to Port Monmouth, and a ferry running from Camden to Phila-
delphia ; and thus, by means of their raib-oads, their steamboats, and
their ferry, they have a continuous through line from the city of New
York to the city of Philadelphia. In one great emergency of the na-
tion, shortly after the battle of Antietam, when there was a universal
panic through the country, when the interests of the republic were
most seriously imperilled, this continuous through line from New York to

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 43

Philadelphia was able to render great service to the nation, and actually
carried over this through line upwards of seventeen thousand troops, and
upwards of eight hundred thousand pounds of munitions of war. Shortly
after they had performed this great service to the country, a petition for
an injunction was brought against them by the Camden and Amboy
Raihoad Company before the Chancellor of New Jersey ; and since this
subject has been before the committee, a decree of the Chancellor has
been issued in that case, a synopsis of which will be found in the report
which accompanies this bill. The Chancellor enjoins the use of the
petitioners' road, except for local purposes, and orders that the Raritan
and Delaware Bay Railroad Company pay to the Camden and Amboy
Railroad Company all sums collected by the former for through business,
including the amount received for transportation of troops; and the
Ch^hcellor decrees that the petitioners* road has no right to carry or
aid in carrying, passengers and freight between New York and Philadel-
phia. The effect of this decision, as the House will see, is to destroy
this road as a continuous through road between New York and Phila-
delphia. It confines it to local business between Camden and Port
Monmouth. It cuts off both ends of the road, cuts off the steamboat
transportation on the Raritan Bay, and the ferry upon the Delaware
River, thus destroying the road as a continuous through route between
New York and Philadelphia.

"Under these circumstances the petitioners come to Congress for
relief, praying that their road and its branches, and its accompanying
ferries, may be declared lawful structures, and also post and military
roads of the United States." ^

Upon this bill, March 24 and 31, Mr. Garfield made this speech.
May 13, the House struck out all after the enacting clause, and inserted
the following : " That every railroad company in the United States,
whose road is operated by steam, its successors and assigns, be and is
hereby authorized to carry upon and over its road, connections, boats,
bridges, and ferries, all freight, property, mails, passengers, troops, and
government supplies, on their way from one State to another State, and
to receive compensation therefor." In this form the bill passed, with
the title, " A Bill to regulate Commerce among the several States." A
vote on the bill was never reached in the Senate.

But this was not the end of the measure. Early the next session, Mr.
Garfield himself reintroduced the bill in the form just given. After be-
ing amended, so as to allow railroads " to connect with roads of other
States, so as to form continuous lines," and denying them the right " to
build any new road, or connect with any other road, without authority
from the State in which said railroad or connection may be proposed,"
the bill passed, and became a law, June 15, 1866. In some remarks

* Congressional Globe, March 17, p 1165.

44 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

made on December 19, 1865, Mr. Garfield said that the bill was ''a plain
determination of the right of Congress to regulate commerce between
the States/' and that it "struck a blow at those hateful monopolies
which had been so long preying upon the body of American industry."
Kindred topics were discussed by him, May 30 and 31, 1866, in re-
marks upon the bill to make the Cleveland and Mahoning Railroad a
military, postal, and commercial railroad of the United States.

MR. SPEAKER, — Before I proceed to discuss the merits
of this bill, I must express my disapprobation of all
those remarks, of which we have heard very many since this
debate began, respecting the probable motives of the com-
mittees and members of this House. Such considerations are
wholly unworthy of ourselves and our position.

The gentleman from New Jersey^ has intimated that the
Committee on Military Affairs was not unanimous in its action
upon this bill. I should like to know by what authority he
makes that assertion. If any member of the Military Commit-
tee is opposed to the bill, he can speak for himself. We have
also been told that there are outside influences at work here ;
that the lobbies are full of corporation agents, crowding around
us on all hands, and pressing their influences upon the commit-
tees and the House. I have only to say, that such remarks are
wholly unworthy of this place, and should be condemned as
undignified and unbefitting the character of men holding the
high place of legislators for the American nation.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania ^ who has just addressed
the House stated that New Jersey politics, New Jersey inter-
ests, and New Jersey legislation were brought before us and
animadverted upon in order to control our action. This is all
small-talk aside from the issue, and should not have a feather's
weight in determining the action of this body. He treats the
Raritan and Atlantic Railroad as a part of a proposed air-line
road, and reads us a lesson from the hornbooks of geometry to
prove that this broken line of roads does not satisfy Euclid's
definition of a straight line. We do not need discussions of
that sort to enable us to understand the nature of a monopoly,
or our duty as legislators. The question before us is a part of
the larger one of increasing the railroad facilities between New

^ Mr. Rogers. > Mr. Broomall.

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 45

York and Washington. The considerations which bear upon
that question bear also upon this.

It is a notorious fact, that the means of communication be-
tween the commercial metropolis and the political metropolis
of this country are exceedingly deficient. This cannot be de-
nied. We have it from the Post-Office Department, we have it
from the War Department, we have it from the business public,
and we have it from the experience of every gentleman who
has travelled over this route, or who has had occasion to trans-
port freight over it, — that there can scarcely be found in the
United States any two important cities with railroad facilities
so inadequate as those between New York and Washington.

It is a fact to which I wish to call the attention of the House,
and I have the consent of the committee to which I belong to
state it, that, in reply to a letter addressed to him, the Quarter-
master-General states that the facilities of the present roads
are not sufficient for the transportation of forage for the ani-
mals belonging to the Army of the Potomac and the troops
about this city. He states officially that it requires three hun-
dred and seventy-five car-loads of long forage and seventy-four
car-loads of short forage per day to feed the animals belong-
ing to the army in front of Washington. This does not include
transportation of quartermasters* stores. It does not include
commissary supplies. It does not include the ordinary necessi-
ties of trade in this capital. It includes only this one item, —
the supply of the animals of the army, which requires four hun-
dred and forty-nine car-loads of forage per day; all of which
must come to the city of Washington over a single track, the
only means of access in time of winter to the capital of the
nation. A large part of these supplies come over the line
between New York and this place. At the time of the ice
blockade, on the 1st of January last and the week succeed-
ing, the Quartermaster-General reported that he received but
t\\'enty car-loads of forage for a whole week. He should have
received seven times four hundred and forty-nine car-loads.
The Potomac, and the railroad itself, which in two places
crosses an arm of the sea, were blockaded with ice.

The quartermaster further reported, that, if the blockade had
continued one week longer, the animals of the army would have
been in a starving condition. It stands before this government as
a matter of fact, that had the ice remained in the river two weeks

46 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

longer, the animals of the army of the Potomac would have
perished. You could not have fed your army, you could not
have preserved your animals, you could not have maintained
your war, if the providence of God had not broken the fetters
of winter ; for the simple reason that a power not in the hands
of the government, but in the hands of a great corporation,
holds the key to all communication between this city and the
outside world.

Now the question comes, Has this government the right to
protect itself? has this nation the right to feed itself? has it the
right to feed its army? If it has any of these rights, it has the
consequent right to adopt and use the means necessary to ac-
complish the purpose. No small-talk about New Jersey or
Pennsylvania politics, no small-talk about an air line, a broken
line, or a curved line, will meet the gigantic fact which stares
Congress in the face, that we must feed our army, and to do so
must increase our railroad facilities from this place to the out-
side world, and most of all between this city and the great com-
mercial metropolis of the nation. I pass from this general
consideration to the specific one, the bill before us.

Mr. Morris. The gentleman speaks of obstructions by ice. I wish
to inquire whether they will be remedied in the future if this bill is
passed. In other words. Is the obstruction on either of the roads in
this bill?

I will answer, that the proposed new road, for the construc-
tion of which the select committee on that subject has prepared
a bill, will be on a line above tide-water, where all the streams
can be permanently bridged, thereby avoiding the ice and com-
pletely answering the question which the gentleman raises.

I have thus far only stated the fact that we are miserably and
notoriously deficient in means of communication between this
city and New York ; and anything we can do to increase the
facilities between this city and that will help the business of
transportation.

The legislature of New Jersey has done what, perhaps, it
had the right to do^ I do not interfere with that, and I do not
ask this House to legislate for New Jersey, but for the Union.
That State chartered a railroad between New York and Phila-
delphia, and placed limitations and restrictions in the charter of
that road. It provided that no other road should do through
business between these two cities. That is the point with which

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 47

we have to deal here. Suppose New Jersey had made a law
that there should never be any railroad through her territory.
If she were isolated, like Florida, she probably might have
made sucli a law without wrong to her sister States, and it
could not have been considered an interference with commerce
between the States ; but if New Jersey, located as she is, had
passed such a law, would any one deny the right of the general
government to order or permit the construction of a new road
across that State for the general good of the country?

Let us take a stronger case. There is one State, — New
York, — whose territory cuts the Union in two. Its northern
boundary touches the British dominions ; its southern, the sea ;
and it forms the only land connection between New England
and the West Suppose New York should decree that there
should forever be no railroads within her limits ; then no man
in New England could reach the West, except by the sea or
through a foreign country. Or suppose, instead of such a law
as that, she should declare that there should be but one rail-
road across her territory, — but one highway between New
England and the West ; and suppose that that road could do
but three fourths of the required business ; I ask if that would
not be precisely the same as though New York should decree
that one fourth of all the necessary business between New Eng-
land and the West should never be done, and if she would not
thus destroy one fourth of all the commerce between those sec-
tions of the country? And I ask any gentleman if, in that
event, he would not consider it our duty to give the rights of
New England and the West a hearing on this floor, — to re-
voke that decision of New York, and declare that free course
should be given to the commerce between the Great West and
the New England States? It seems to me that no sane man
can doubt it

A thing precisely similar has been done by the State of New
Jersey. She does not span the continent; she does not reach
from the ocean to Canada ; but she does lie between the po-
litical centre and the commercial centre of this country ; and
it happens to be in her power, if we do not exercise a superior
power, to say that there shall be no road, or but one, between
those two great cities. She has chosen not to interdict all
roads, but to say there shall be no commerce between Wash-
ington and New York beyond what one road is able and willing

48 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

to carry on. Who will deny that this is, pro tantOy an interdic-
tion of commerce, — a decision that all the surplus business
over and above what the Camden and Amboy road can do,
shall not be done at all? If there is ever offered for transpor-
tation over that road one pound of freight more than it can
carry, and carry promptly. New Jersey has decided by solemn
law that that pound of freight shall not be carried by rail-
road across her territory. She has absolutely interdicted it.
It is to meet this case that the power of Congress is now
invoked.

Now, what constitjutional powers do we possess in this be-
half? If gentlemen will take time to read the very able report
of my colleague on the Military Committee, the gentleman from
Connecticut,^ they will see that five distinct times has the Con-
gress of the United States affirmed and exercised the- right to
establish military and post roads, and to regulate commerce
between the States, by permitting the opening of roads and the
construction of bridges. *And not only so, but on one memo-
rable occasion, fresh in all our recollections. Congress actually
annulled a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
on a similar question. The Supreme Court declared the
Wheeling bridge a public nuisance; decided that it existed
without sufficient warrant of law, and should be removed; and
immediately on the rendering of that decision Congress passed
a law declaring the structure a lawful one, and part of a post-
road, any law of any State or decision of any court to the con-
trary notwithstanding. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania *
who has just taken his seat claim that this was an indignity to
the Supreme Court? He says that the legislation now pro-
posed is an indignity to the legislature and the judiciary of New
Jersey. New Jersey has risen very high in her dignity if the
Congress of the United States can insult her by legislating as it
has done five times before. If New Jersey is insulted by this
legislation, what will the gentleman say of the Supreme Court
of the United States, whose decision was at once revoked by
act of Congress? I know of no power on earth that should
possess more dignity than the sovereignty of the American
people in Congress assembled. I know of no body politic,
corporate or national, that can be insulted by the legitimate
and constitutional action of this body.

^ Mr. Deming. « Mr. Broomall.

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 49

Mr. Broomall. The gentleman is certainly mistaken in supposing
that I claimed the want of power in Congress to make such enactments,
or that I stated that the dignity of the State of New Jersey would be in-
sulted. I claimed no dignity for New Jersey, and denied no power to
Congress ; I merely denied the policy of amending New Jersey legis-
lation by act of Congress.

If the gentleman's statement of his own position be correct, —
and of course I accept it, but I distinctly understood him other-
wise,— I still do not agree with him that we should never inter-
fere with and amend things that are wrong. I take it to be our
special duty here to do justice ; and if any State has usurped
the prerogatives of this body, it is our duty to correct that in-
justice by amending or abrogating its action. I am very glad
that the gentleman has taken away all suspicion that he denies
the power of Congress to legislate on this subject.

Now, what are the facts in relation to this New Jersey rail-
road ? That it is a complete and sweeping monopoly, no man
can deny. That it has furnished the revenues and paid the ex-
penses of that State for many years, is undeniable. Not a dol-
lar of tax for the current expenses of her government did New
Jersey levy for years until the war began. The Camden and
Amboy Railroad Company has paid $2,600,000 into the treas-
ury of the State since it received its charter. And that has been
collected, not on the local business, but on the through business
from Philadelphia to New York, nine tenths of it the business
of persons not citizens of New Jersey. Disguise it under any
color you please. New Jersey's taxes have been paid by citizens
of other States. Her burdens have been borne by citizens of
Pennsylvania, of New York, of the West, of New England, and
not by her own citizens.

It is very true that, if a citizen of New Jersey chances to be
in Philadelphia, and buys his ticket to New York, he pays his
ten cents of tax to the State ; but it is also true that, if his jour-
ney is wholly within New.Jersey, he pays less per mile than he
would as a through passenger. This has been a crying shame
before the people of the country. Men of justice and equity
have condemned it everywhere. I say it without any ill feeling
toward New Jersey or her people. It has brought a cloud over
the fair fame of the State, which, were I a representative from
the State, I should be the first to desire to see removed.

Now, what is the purpose of the bill before us? A line of

VOL. I. 4

50 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

road has been constructed from Raritan Bay to Philadelphia, or
rather to the middle of the river, opposite Philadelphia. The
Supreme Court of New Jersey has decided, first, that the road
is a legal structure. Let that be noted. But it has also de-
clared, that, although the road is a legal structure, no man can
ride over it ; that no freight can be carried over it from Phila-
delphia to New York. The court has sealed up the two ends
of the road. It has sealed it at the middle of the river oppo-
site Philadelphia. It has sealed it at high-water mark, on Rari-
tan Bay. Now, what is asked of Congress? We are asked to
commence at the State line and unseal one end of the road;
and we are asked to go to high-water mark, at the boundary of
the ocean, which is under our exclusive jurisdiction, and unseal
the other end of the road. That is what we are asked to do.

But I am informed that the morning hour has expired. I
have a few more words to add when the consideration of this
bill is resumed.

On the 31st of March the debate was renewed, and Mr. Garfield con-
tinued as follows : — \

Mr. Speaker, — When this subject was last before the House,
I submitted a few remarks, but the morning hour expired before
I concluded. I then undertook to show, by the reports of the
Quartermaster-General and the Postmaster-General, that oiir
communications between this city and the city of New York
are notoriously insufficient for the wants of the government and
the general public. That statement was demonstrated by quo-
tations from official reports. I then made the point that, if any
State prohibited the construction of more than one line of com-
munication, and that line was not sufficient for all the business
required, it was, pro tanto, an inhibition of transportation across
that State. I showed conclusively, I think, that such was the fact
in regard to transportation across the State of New Jersey, and
the prohibition which now exists is, in -fact, a refusal to grant the
necessary rights of transit across the territory of that State, and
a direct interference with commerce between the States.

I know that the gentleman who preceded me^ stated that,
while he was in favor of an " air line," or direct route across
New Jersey, he was not in favor of an " elbow line," or circuit-
ous route. I answer, if the route is a circuitous one, and less

^ Mr. Broomall.

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 51

eligible for the purposes of commerce, it cannot be competitive
unless transportation by the usual route is insufficient If you
allow that the present road is insufficient, why not permit the
use of a circuitous road rather than cripple the commerce of
the country? But the new road is competitive, because the old
one is not sufficient. The government has transported over
the elbow " route," during the past season, 3 1 ,394 United States
troops, 620 horses, and 108 car-loads of baggage for the troops
thus transported. The road is a competitive route, and a New
Jersey court has so decided. Why competitive? Because, in
railroad travelling, time is a more important element than dis-
tance, and the running time of the new road between Philadel-
phia and New York is ten minutes less than that of the Camden
and Amboy between the same places. It is true the distance is
twenty-three miles greater, yet, because of the sparsely settled
country through which it passes, there are fewer stopping-
places, fewer hindrances to travel, and hence it is a quicker
route. It does its business more rapidly and promptly than the
Camden and Amboy.

The present monopoly complains that greater facilities for
transportation have been afforded to the American people. It
has itself furnished testimony of its own inability to meet all the
demands of commerce. In a document which its directors have
circulated among the members of this House, they attempt to
show that they have filled all orders promptly and thoroughly.
One of their own witnesses, however, a captain in the army,
says : —

" In answer to the several interrogations contained in the pencil memo-
randum which you handed me yesterday I have to state as follows, viz. : —

" Fourth interrogation. — Camden and Amboy Railroad could have
carried more troops at any time than were offered. I have no means of
knowing how many troops could have been carried if the whole facilities
of that road had been given to the government ; but the demands at times
have been very heavy, probably more than any one road in this or any
other country could have met without considerable delay. Troops have
often been sent by steamer to Washington to relieve the railroads.

" D. Stimson,
Captain and Assistant Quartermaster,^*

Who is it that complains of the increased facilities of the new
road? Who comes into court and claims to be aggrieved? It
is the Camden and Amboy Railroad, and no other.

52 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

I hold in my hand a book which ought to be called the Regis-
ter of Greatness and Official Dignitaries, or rather the Blue
Book of the State of New Jersey. It is a collection of the
official reports of the Camden and Amboy monopoly from the
formation of the company to the present time, and I venture to
say that such another book cannot be found in America. The
monopoly has taken New Jersey under its protection. It praises,
admonishes, or censures New Jersey, according as she follows or
disregards the standard of the Camden and Amboy monopoly's
theory of political economy. I venture to say that a parallel to
the records of this book cannot be found in the history of the
republic. I will present some of the facts which it contains.

In 1 846 the monopoly issued an address to the people of New
Jersey. It tells them that New Jersey is vastly superior to her
sister States in the management of public concerns ; it goes on
to say that Pennsylvania and New York have foolishly expended
money in public improvements and developing their material
wealth, and then concludes, with an air of triumph, as follows :
" New Jersey has no coal lands or salt springs to be converted
into monopolies ; but she has a most enviable geographical po-
sition in the Union, which it is her duty to improve for the
benefit of her citizens. She has done so in the manner deemed
most advisable and profitable, and has reason to be proud of
the wisdom which dictated her policy."

She has " improved her geographical position " by creating a
sweeping monopoly, and taxing all freight and passengers be-
tween the great commercial cities of Pennsylvania and New
York. The monopoly congratulates New Jersey on her cunning
device to raise taxes without cost to herself.

This monopoly is sometimes as " 'umble " as Uriah Heep, and
at others as proud as Lucifer. When it wants favors from the
legislature of New Jersey, it is very humble ; but when the State
wants favors from it, it is exceedingly haughty. In i860, the
monopoly came before the country for a loan of $6,000,000.
To secure it on reasonable terms it became necessary to exhibit
the resources of the company. To do this, the company issued
one of its proclamations to the people of New Jersey. Let it be
remembered that this monopoly tells the people of New Jersey
that it relies chiefly on New York and Philadelphia for the
money it makes. It exhibits the condition of the joint com-
panies as follows : —

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 53

" I. The peculiar advantage of their geographical position. 2. The
extent and number of railway lines now belonging to the joint companies,
compared with their single line of sixty-one miles in 1834. 3. The reve-
nues of the companies now, compared with the estimate of probable
revenue in the infancy of their enterprise.

" The cities of New York and Philadelphia, which are connected to-
gether by our canal and railways, are still in advance of all other cities in
the United States in wealth, population, and commercial advantages. It
has been upon their growth and prosperity that we have chiefly relied for
revenue and its progressive increase. This reliance has not been indulged
unwisely.

"In 1834 the net income of the company was $450,000. By refer-
ence to the annual sworn report of the State Directors, made in January,
i860, to the legislature of New Jersey, it will be seen that the net in-
come of the Camden and Amboy Railroad Company from their differ-
ent through lines of railway was $91 1,242, and that of the canal company
"^^ tzZSA^9\ in all, 1 1,246,371; being nearly three times greater in
amount than the original estimates of income in 1834

" The population of the United States doubles in a little over twenty-
three years, and that of the cities of New York and Philadelphia in about
eighteen years ; but the revenues of the joint companies increase in a
ratio exceeding that of the increase of the population of New York and
Riiladelphia ; and when in twenty-five years New York and Philadelphia
may each contain two million people, and the United States sixty million,
the annual revenues of the joint companies may be safely estimated at
$5,000,000.

" It is no exaggeration to say, that there is not on the continent of
North America any railway or canal franchise so valuable as that of the
joint companies. They possess a capacious canal, itself worth more this
day than the whole amount which we propose to borrow upon the secu-
rity of the united companies.

" They are proprietors likewise of one entire through line, and of two
thirds of a second line of railway connecting two great cities, the com-
mercial emporiums of the Western world. They have a controlling prop-
erty also in a line of railway, more than one hundred miles in extent,
reaching into the coal and iron fields of Pennsylvania, the products of
which annually augment with the unbounded demand, which is ever in
advance of their supply.

" The interest of the State of New Jersey is identified with that of the
joint companies, as we have said before, and she is relieved from the
necessity of imposing any State tax by the ample revenue which she
derives fix)m the companies.

" New Jersey is distinguished for the conservative character of her
people and her legislation ; and when her citizens have invested their

S4 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

capital in works designed for the public benefit, she has always refused
to impair the value of franchise devoted to such objects by the creation
of a rival. Efforts indeed have, within the past thirty years, been some-
times made to induce the legislature of New Jersey to grant charters for
rival railroads, but invariably without success. What could not be done
when, in the infancy of the companies, the revenue of the State derived
from them was small, need excite* no apprehensions now, when the whole
expense of the State government is provided for from the income fur-
nished by the business of our railroads and canal."

Was ever anything so barefaced? The monopoly comes here
boasting of wealth unprecedented, of rights and franchises un-
paralleled, and of drawing its chief wealth from citizens outside
of New Jersey, because that State has a geographical position
which enables her to make money out of the cities of other
States I And this is the party which comes here and asks us to
forbid the Raritan road to exercise the right of transportation
between New York and Philadelphia !

How have the joint companies managed their matters and
made their money? The charter of their road prohibited them
from charging more than three dollars for a passenger fare be-
tween Philadelphia and New York, and yet from the year 1835 to
1849 they charged four dollars in the face of the law. In 1842,
however, the legislature of New Jersey determined that one half
of all that the company charged above three dollars should be
paid into the treasury of the State ; in other words, the State
said to the company, " If you will steal, give us half the steal-
ings ; we really cannot prevent you, but if you are bound to do
it, give us half the proceeds." But they never did even that.

I will call the attention of the House to another fact. This
line of roads between New York and Philadelphia is ninety miles
long, and the passenger fare is now three dollars. I desire to
compare this with some other rates of fare as I find them quoted
in a daily journal : New York to Philadelphia, 90 miles, $3 ;
Hudson River to Rhinebeck, 91 miles, $1.80; Harlem to Albany,
154 miles, $3 ; Erie to Port Jervis, 87 miles, $2.10; Lackawanna
to Stroudsburg, 90 miles, $2.55 ; New Haven and Hartford to
Meriden, 94 miles, $2.34; New Haven and New London to
Guilford, 94 miles, $2.35. All these routes save one are longer
than the Camden and Amboy, and some of them charge but a
little more than half the fare. The road from Harlem to Albany
is one hundred and fifty-four miles long, and charges just three

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 55

dollars, while this New Jersey monopoly charges the same for
ninety miles.

The companies have violated all the common laws of whole-
sale and retail trade. It is generally understood that a pound
of coffee costs more pro rata than a thousand pounds. But if
you travel ten miles in New Jersey, you are charged less per
mile than if you travel ninety miles. The local rates within the
limits of the State are not half so great as the through rates
between New York and Philadelphia. It is by this kind of out-
rageous violation of all the laws of trade that New Jersey has
made money out of this country.

Now what does this monopoly ask? Here is the prayer its
attorney makes to the Chancellor of New Jersey : —

" My first point was that the road had been used, by their own admis-
sion, for the transportation of soldiers and munitions of wai ; the fact
that they allege as an ample and sufficient excuse, is that this was done by
order of the Secretary of War. I insist that, no matter by whose order it
was done, it was a transportation of passenger and freight by railway
across the State and between the cities, in every sense of the words.
.... By which New Jersey is robbed of her tax of ten cents on each
passenger. .... I say it is no defence whatever, if they have suc-
ceeded in obtaining an order of the Secretary of War, when we call upon
them to give us the money they made by it ; and that is one of our calls.
Ihey have no right to get an order to deprive the State of New Jersey of
the right of transit duty, which is her adopted policy."

In other words^, this gigantic monopoly, that reaches into the
heart of Pennsylvania and other States and draws its life-blood
from them, demands that the new road, which has served the
government in the transportation of troops and munitions of
war, shall pay over all its earnings to its grasping rival.

What answer did the Chancellor of New Jersey make to this
demand? I have it here.^ He decided, in the first place, that
the Raritan road is a legal structure from Camden to Port Mon-
mouth,— from the western to the eastern line of the State. In
the next place, that no passengers or freight shall be taken over
it from Philadelphia to New York. What kind of a decision is
that? Is not New Jersey thus legislating for New York and
Philadelphia? She says that a man may go by this route from
one border of the State to the other, but not beyond. The road
is a legal one, but no man can pass over it and across the State

1 See N. J Eq. Reports, i Green, 321-382.

L

56 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

without robbing her of her ten cents tax ! That is the decision
of New Jersey ; and if it is not legislation for New York and
Pennsylvania, there can be no such thing as interference with
the legislation of other States. Under the Chancellor's decision,
the Raritan company has been compelled to instruct its agents
to sell no tickets unless they know, of their own knowledge, that
the party purchasing is not going through the State. The re-
sult is to destroy at least one third of the local business ; but
the company is compelled to do it to save itself from further
injunction.

It has been asked why this matter comes here. Because,
in obeying the orders of the Secretary of War in transport-
ing troops and munitions of war, the Raritan road has been
wronged ; and it comes to the Congress of the nation for re-
dress. The Military Committee has recommended that it shall
have redress.

I believe no gentleman here will deny that Congress has am-
ple power to establish military and post roads, to maintain the
government, and feed its armies. But there is another power
which should not be overlooked. I mean the power to regulate
commerce between the States. That power has been repeat-
edly declared by the courts to reside exclusively in the Con-
gress of the United States. It was so decided in Gibbons v,
Ogden,^ in the Passenger Cases,^ and in the Wheeling Bridge
Case.^ It is a decision so frequently made that no gentleman of
any legal learning will risk his reputation by a* denial of it.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have something more than the mere
statement of the right. We have the admission of the State of
New Jersey that Congress has this right ; and if any person or
any power on earth may come in to deny it, New Jersey is by
her own act forever estopped from making that denial. I call
your attention to a law of New Jersey passed February 4, 183 1.
In the sixth section of that act she says : —

" Be it macted^ That when any other railroad, or roads, for the trans-
portation of passengers and property between New York and Philadel-
phia, across this State, shall be constructed and used for that purpose,
under or by virtue of any law of this State or the United States^ author-
izing or recognizing said road, that then and in that case the said divi-
dends shall be no longer payable to the State, and the said stock shall be
re-transferred to the company by the treasurer of this State."

1 9 Wheaton, i. '7 Howard, 283. • 13 Howard, 518, and 18 Howard, 421.

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 57

This law required the acceptance of the company to make it
valid, and the company did accept it four days after its passage.
A solemn compact — New Jersey is addicted to the use of that
word — was thus made between the State and the company,
that when Congress shall see fit to authorize and establish a
road, or to recognize one already established, then the Camden
and Amboy Company shall lose its special privileges. The
parties not only admit that Congress may do it, but they unite
in a solemn compact in which that very action of Congress is a
condition. That, sir, is the thing I desire Congress now to do ;
when it is done, the monopoly will be dead forever.

New Jersey took another step in the same direction in 1854.
She extended the monopoly charter ten years. The law by
which it is extended is prefaced by a most extraordinary pre-
amble, and that may be thus summed up : " Whereas the legis-
lature of New Jersey has granted to the Camden and Amboy
Railroad Company special and exclusive privileges, in consid-
eration of," etc., etc *' And whereas the extinguishment

of these privileges is a matter of great public importance:
Therefore, Be it enacted," etc.

Mark that ! The extinguishment of these privileges is a mat"
ter of great public importance ; therefore we extend this monopoly
for ten years ! I do not very much admire the logic of this
law, but I do admire the preamble exceedingly. It acknowl-
edges, by the voice of New Jersey, that it is a matter of great
public concern that this exclusive privilege shall be extin-
guished. I hope Congress will listen to the desire of New Jer-
sey, and aid her in this good work.

Since this bill has been before us, and since I last had the
honor to address the House, we have heard from the Governor
and the legislature of New Jersey in regard to this bill, I ask
the indulgence of the House while I read some portions of the
proclamation of his Excellency.

" In the consideration of this question two inquiries naturally arise :
First, would the proposed action of Congress, if consummated, affect the
pecuniary interest of this State ? Secondly, and chiefly^ would such action
in6inge upon the sovereignty of the State ? . . . .

" It is for you to inquire whether the proposed action of Congress
would affect the interest of the State in the stock, dividends, or transit
duties derived from said companies.

" But the pecuniary interest of the State is of litde importance in com-

58 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

parison with the principle involved, and I therefore direct your attention
particularly to the second inquiry, before mentioned. New Jersey is a
sovereign State, and it is our duty, by every lawful means, to protect and
defend her sovereignty, and to transmit unimpaired to posterity all her
rights as they were received by her from our fathers. In the exercise of
her rightful powers she may build, maintain, and manage lines of public
travel within her territory, and she may grant to others the right to con-
tract works under such regulations and upon such conditions as she may
see fit to impose. When the States entered into the national compact
they yielded to the general government the right to establish post-roads
for the conveyance of mails, and power to construct military roads in
time of war, for the purpose of transportation of troops ; but even these
roads must be operated by the government, and not through the agency
or for the benefit of private corporations. A law of Congress to exceed
the powers granted by the States infringes upon the reserved rights, and
detracts from the State legislatures a portion of their rightful authority.

" Let it be distinctly understood by those who would inflict an indig-
nity upon our State, that while New Jersey will comply with every legal
obligation, and will respect and protect the rights of all, she will not per-
mit any infringement of her rights without resorting to every lawful means
to prevent it.

" Joel Parker."

Mr. Speaker, this lifls our subject above corporations and
monopolies to the full height of a national question ; I might
almost call it a question of loyalty or disloyalty. His Excel-
lency will find his political doctrines much more ably and ele-
gantly stated in Calhoun's nullification teachings of 1833, than
in his own message.

He says New Jersey is a sovereign State. I pause there for a
moment. I believe that no man will ever be able to chronicle
all the evils that have resulted to this nation from the abuse of
the words " sovereign " and " sovereignty." What is this thing
called "State Sovereignty"? Nothing more false was ever
uttered in the halls of legislation than that any State of this
Union is sovereign. Refresh your recollections of " sovereign-
ty " as defined in the elementary text-books of law. Speaking
of the sovereignty of nations, Blackstone says : " However they
began, by what right so ever they subsist, there is and must be
in all of them a supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled
authority, in which the jura sutntni imperii, or rights of sover-
eignty, reside."

Do these elements belong to any State of this republic?

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 59

Sovereignty has the right to declare war. Can New Jersey de-
clare war? Sovereignty has the right to conclude peace. Can
New Jersey conclude peace ? Sovereignty has the right to coin
money. If the legislature of New Jersey should authorize
and command one of its citizens to coin half a dollar, that
man, if he obeyed, would be locked up in a felon's cell for the
crime of counterfeiting the coin of the real sovereign. Sover-
eignty makes treaties with foreign nations. Can New Jersey
make treaties? Sovereignty regulates commerce with foreign
States, and puts ships in commission upon the high seas.
Should a ship set sail under the authority of New Jersey, it
would be seized as a smuggler, forfeited, and sold. Sover-
ignty has a flag. But, thank God ! New Jersey has no flag,
Ohio has no flag. No loyal State fights under the " lone
star," the " rattlesnake," or the " palmetto-tree." No loyal
State has any flag but the " banner of beauty and glory," the
flag of the Union.

These are the indispensable elements of sovereignty. New
Jersey has not one of them. The term can be applied only
to the separate States in a very limited and restricted sense,
referring mainly to municipal and police regulations. The
rights of the States should be jealously guarded and defended.
But to claim that sovereignty in its full sense and mean-
ing belongs to the States, is nothing better than rankest
treason.

Look again at this document of the Governor of New Jersey.
He says the States entered into the national compact. National
compact ! I had supposed that no Governor of a loyal State
would parade this dead dogma of Nullification and Secession,
which was buried by Webster on the i6th of February, 1833.
There was no such thing as a sovereign State making a com-
pact called a Constitution. The very language of the Consti-
tution is decisive : " VVe, the people of the United States, do
ordain and establish this Constitution." The States did not
make a compact to be broken when any one pleased, but the
people ordained and established the Constitution of a sovereign
republic ; and woe be to any corporation or State that raises
its hand against it!

The message closes with a determination to resist the legisla-
tion here proposed. This itself is another reason why I ask
this Congress to exercise its right, and thus rebuke this spirit of

6o COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES,

nullification. The gentleman from Pennsylvania ^ tells us that
New Jersey is a loyal State, and thousands of her citizens are
in the army. I am proud of all the citizens of New Jersey
who are fighting in our army. They are not fighting for New
Jersey, nor for the Camden and Amboy monopoly, but for the
Union, as against the nullification or rebellion of any State.
Patriotic men of New Jersey in the army and at home are
groaning under this tyrannical monopoly, and I hold it to
be the high right and duty of this body to strike off their
fetters.

Congress has done similar work before. It did it in the
case of the Wheeling Bridge across the Ohio. There is a still
stronger case. A corporation spanned the Ohio River at Steu-
benville under a charter granted by the State of Virginia, but
with conditions appended which could not be fulfilled. The
corporation came to Congress, and asked that the bridge might
be declared a legal structure and part of a post-road. By sol-
emn law Congress declared it to be a post-road; and no law
of the State of Virginia or of the State of Ohio to the contrary
can interfere with it. We have used this power hitherto, but
we have never before been called upon to exercise it in any
case so deserving as that which gave rise to this bill.

^ Mr. Broomall.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

SPEECH DEUVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 26, 1865.

On the 8th of February, 1864, Mr. G. H. Pendleton introduced into
the House of Representatives a joint resolution to provide that the heads
of the Executive Departments might occupy seats on the floor of that
body, which was twice read, and referred to a select committee of
seven. April 6, the measure came back from the committee amended,
and accompanied by majority and minority reports. Then the subject
was recommitted to the committee, and a motion to reconsider the
recommitment entered. May 30, the special committee was, by resolu-
tion, continued during the present Congress. At the next session, the
subject was discussed on the motion to reconsider. The resolution as
amended contained these sections : —

" That the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secre-
tary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Interior,
the Attorney- General, and the Postmaster- General, shall be entitled to
occupy seats on the floor of the House of Representatives, with the right
to participate in debate upon matters relating to the business of their
respective Departments, under such rules as may be prescribed by the
House.

" That the said Secretaries, the Attorney- General, and the Postmaster-
General shall attend the sessions of the House of Representatives, im-
mediately on the opening of the sittings on Mondays and Thursdays of
each week, to give information in reply to questions which may be
propounded to them under the rules of the House."

The Committee also recommended certain amendments to the Rules
of the House, deemed necessary to carry the above provisions into effect
(see Congressional Globe, January 25, 1865). The next day Mr. Gar-
field delivered the following speech, in immediate reply to Mr. S. S. Cox,
of Ohio. On March 3, the resolution was laid aside informally, and no
action was had.

62 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

MR. SPEAKER, — I will not detain the House long on this
subject. I know how difficult it is to get the attention
of members to the consideration of a grave measure when they
have just attended a place of amusement. I know how ungrate-
ful a task it is to attempt to recall their attention after the ex-
hibition to which the gentleman from Ohio ^ has treated them.
The gentleman's speech sufficiently proves that he has read his
law on the subject from Sergeant Buzfuz, and his constitutional
and legislative history from Tittlebat Titmouse, to whom he has
just referred ; for certainly the history of legislation, as reflected
in the Journals of Congress, gives no support to his position.

I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that we can, for once, approach the
discussion of a measure on its own merits, uninfluenced by any
mere party considerations. I wish we might, in the discussion
of this subject, be equally free from that international jealousy,
that hereditary hatred, so frequently and unreasonably mani-
fested against Great Britain. I have noticed on the faces of
members of the House a smile of satisfaction when any speaker
has denounced the proposal to copy any custom of, or borrow
any experience from, the government of England. No man on
this floor is more desirous than myself to see this republic
stand erect among the nations, and grant to and exact from
Great Britain equal justice. I fully appreciate how little friend-
ship she has shown us in our great national struggle, yet I will
not allow my mind to be so prejudiced as not to see the great-
ness, the glory, and the excellence of the British constitution.
I believe that, next to our own, the constitution of Great Britain
stands highest for its wisdom and its security to freedom of all
the constitutions of the civilized world ; and in some respects
it is equal or superior to our own. It does not become us,
therefore, to set it aside as unworthy of our study, of our care-
ful observation. Gentlemen should not forget that, in the days
of George III., England, as well as America, emancipated herself
from the tyranny of kingly prerogative; and it may be well
questioned whether the two streams that sprung from that great
struggle have not been flowing in parallel channels of equal
depth and greatness, one on this continent and the other in the
British islands. It may well be doubted whether there is not as
much popular freedom in the kingdom of Great Britain as in

* Mr. Cox.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS. 63

this republic, and more Parliamentary security. A gentleman
who has lately crossed the sea, a man of great ability and a
philosophic observer, has said to-day that the British ministry
is nothing more or less than " a committee of the House of
Commons." I believe that he describes it correctly. I believe
that no nation has a ministry so susceptible to the breath of
popular opinion, so readily influenced and so completely con-
trolled by popular power, as is the ministry of Great Britain by
the House of Commons. Let one decisive vote be given against
the plans of that ministry, and it is at once dissolved. It exists
by the will of the House of Commons. How does this come
about? From the fact that, at the very time that we emanci-
pated ourselves from the kingly prerogatives of George III.,
Parliamentary reforms in Great Britain emancipated that nation
and established Parliamentary liberty in England. It does not,
therefore, become gentlemen to appeal to our ancient preju-
dices, so that we may not learn anything from that great and
wise system of government adopted by our neighbors across
the sea.

In the consideration of this question I shall touch upon three
leading points: first, the precedents from our own history;
second, the constitutionality of the proposed measure, as ex-
hibited in the early discussions and laws; and third, the policy
of the measure.

The precedents cited by the gentleman from Ohio,^ the chair-
man of the select committee, in his very able report, estab-
lish beyond all question that, in the early days of the republic
under the Constitution, the heads of Departments did come
upon the floor of Congress and make communications. No
man, I believe, has denied that; I think no gentleman can suc-
cessfully deny it. My friend from Vermont,^ if I understand
him, denies that they did more than to meet the Senate in execu-
tive session. I am glad to see that the gentleman assents to my
statement of his position. I will now cite two examples where
the head of a Department came on the floor of the House and
made statements. If the gentleman will turn to the first volume
of the Annals of Congress, he will find the following entry
under date of August 7, 1789: "The following message was
received from the President of the United States by General
Knox, the Secretary of War, who delivered therewith sundry

1 Mr. Pendleton. 2 Mr. Morrill.

64 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

statements." ^ Some gentlemen may say those statements were
in writing. I ask them to listen a little further : " who deliv-
ered therewith sundry statements and papers relating to the
same." So the Secretary of War came to the House of Repre-
sentatives and made statements.

Mr. Morrill. I will say to the gentleman from Ohio, that I take
that to mean nothing more than what the private secretary of the Presi-
dent now does every day. At that time the President of the United
States had no private secretary, but he used the members of the Cabinet
for that purpose, and for that purpose here only.

I should like to ask my friend from Vermont whether the
private secretary of the President makes any statements except
the mere announcement of the message which he delivers?

Mr. Morrill. I take it that that was all that was contemplated
then. We daily have communications from the President, containing
more than one document, statement, or paper.

My friend from Vermont has assisted me. He now makes
the point that the expression " statements," here referred to, is
merely the announcement of a message. I call his attention to
the second case which I will cite from the same volume. On
the loth of August, 1789, the President sent in a message by
the hands of General Knox, " who delivered the same, together
with a statement of the troops in the service of the United
States."^ He made to the House of Representatives statements
about troops in the service, so that the statements referred to
are not merely statements of the fact that he delivered a mes-
sage from the President.

Mr. Morrili- I do not like to interrupt the gentleman from Ohio,
but I must insist that his second instance does not prove the fact which
he assumes. He will find, if he will proceed further on in the same
volume, that when the question came up distinctly upon allowing the
Secretary of the Treasury to come in here for once, and once only, it
was then declared that it would be setting a new precedent, one which
they could not tolerate, and which they did not tolerate, but voted down
after discussion.

The gentleman has helped to pioneer my way handsomely
thus far. I shall consider the very example to which he refers,
and which I have examined with some care, under my second
point, — the discussions in the Congress of the United States

1 Page 709. » Page 716.

CABINET OFFICERS. IN CONGRESS. 65

touching the constitutionality of the proposed law. There were
discussions at five different periods in* the history of Congress,
and only five, so far as I have found, touching this general
subject.

The first occurred in the First Congress, when it was pro-
posed to establish executive departments. On the 19th of May,
1789, Mr. Boudinot, of New Jersey, moved that the House pro-
ceed, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, to estab-
lish executive departments of the government, the chief officers
thereof to be removable at the will of the President. Under
that resolution arose a full discussion of the nature of the offices
to be created, by whom the officers were to be appointed, and
by whom removed. The discussion covers forty or fifty pages
of the volume before me, and embraces some of the very ablest
expositions of the Constitution to be found in the early annals
of Congress. After this long discussion the following results
were arrived at, which will answer some of the points just made
by my colleague from Ohio.^ First, it was decided that the
departments were to be established by Congress, and the duties
and general scope of powers vested therein were to be estab-
lished by law ; but the incumbents of these offices were to be
appointed by the President, and removed at his pleasure. It
was clearly determined, in the second place, that these officers
could be removed in two ways : first, by the President ; second,
by impeachment in the usual modes prescribed in the Consti-
tution. It was thus settled, in this great discussion, not, as is
said by my colleague who has just taken his seat, that Cabinet
ministers are the creatures of the President and responsible to
him alone, but that their very Departments and their whole
organization depend in every case upon the law of Congress,
and they are themselves subject to impeachment for neglect of
their duties, or violation of their obligations, in those offices.

The second discussion occurred in the same year when the
Treasury Department was established, and in that instance the
discussion became more precise and critical, bearing more
nearly upon the particular question now before us. A clause
was introduced into the law establishing the Treasury Depart-
ment, providing that the Secretary of the Treasury should be
directed to prepare plans for the redemption of the public debt,
and for all the different measures relating to his Department;

1 Mr. Cox.
VOL. I 5

66 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

and " that he shall make report, and give information to either
branch of the Legislature, in person or in writing, as may be
required, respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate
or House of Representatives, or which shall appertain to his
office." The debate took a very wide range. It was objected
by several members that the provision was unconstitutional, on
the ground that the House was the only power authorized to
originate money bills, and that such an enactment would put
that power in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury. A
very long discussion ensued on what was meant by ** originating
a bill." Some contended that to draft a bill was to originate
it; others, that no proposed measure was a "bill" until the
House had passed it ; while others again said that it was a bill
whenever the House authorized it to be introduced. Finally it
was determined that there wai& nothing incompatible with the
Constitution in allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to report
plans and prepare drafts of bills. It was thus settled, and has
been the policy of the government till the present day, that the
Secretary of the Treasury may properly draft bills and prepare
plans and present them to Congress. And it is still a part of
pur law, — I have the provision before me, — ** that the Secre-
tary of the Treasury shall make report, and give information
to either branch of the Legislature, in person or in writing,
as may be required." Let it be understood that in the First
Congress of the United States a law was passed, — approved,
Sept. 2, 1789, by George Washington, acted upon before in
the House and in the Senate by the men who framed the
' Constitution, — which law provided that it should be the duty
of the Secretary of the Treasury to report his plans in writing
or in person, as either House might require.

Mr. Morrill. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. When the
Secretary had made out his plan in pursuance of the resolution by which
he was authorized to make it, did not the House, on the very first occa-
sion when it could take action on the subject, distinctly discuss the ques-
tion, and refuse him the privilege of reporting in person ?

I am coming, in a moment, to that precise point. The whole
question of the undue influence which it might give to the
executive Departments to allow Cabinet officers to make their
reports was fully examined ; and after the fullest and freest dis-
cussion, which, even in a condensed form, covers some twenty

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS. 67

pages of the book before me, the measure was passed without
even a division, and became the law of the land.

I now come to the point to which the gentleman from Ver-
mont has referred, — the third of the five discussions. On the
9th of January, 1790, the House received a communication
from the Secretary of the Treasury stating that, in obedience
to their resolution of the 21st of September previous, he had
prepared a draft of a plan for funding the public debt, and was
ready, at their pleasure, to report, — it being settled in the law,
as I have already said, that he should report in person or in
writing, as he might be directed. The question was discussed,
as the gentleman from Vermont noticed in his examination of
the case yesterday. Mr. Gerry moved that the report should
be made in writing. The question, whether it should be made
in writing or orally was discussed, and the chief argument used
in the case was, that it would be impossible for members of
Congress to understand it unless it was reduced to writing, so
that they could have it before them. It was also said that the
scope and bearing of the whole report would be so extensive
that the human mind could not comprehend the whole of it,
unless they could have it before them in a permanent shape.
It was conceded by several who spoke, that the House could
have the report made in writing, or orally, or in writing with
accompanying oral explanations. The constitutional doubt was
not suggested in that discussion. It was decided, without a
division, not that the Secretary should not be permitted to come
into the House, but that his report should be in writing. The
law still stood, as it now stands, that he shall report in person
or in writing, as either House may direct.

The fourth discussion related to the defeat of General St.
Clair. I will remind the House of the history of that case. In
1791, St. Clair was ordered to lead an expedition against the
Indians in the Northwestern Territory ; his army was disgrace-
fully defeated ; the case was referred to General Washington,
who declined to order a court of inquiry; and the subject was
taken up in the House of Representatives, and on the 27th of
March, 1792, a committee was ordered to inquire into the causes
of the failure of the expedition. On the 8th of May following,
the committee made a report which reflected severely upon the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of War. On the
13th of November, 1792, a resolution was introduced into the

68 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

House to notify the two Secretaries that on the following
Wednesday the House would take the report into consideration,
and that they might attend. After a considerable discussion,
the resolution was negatived, and it was resolved to empower
a special committee of the House to send for persons and
papers in the case. On the following day the Secretary of
War, General Knox, addressed a letter to the Speaker of the
House, asking an opportunity to vindicate himself before the
House. It was said by the gentleman from Vermont, yesterday,
that General Knox was not permitted to come in. A discussion
of the subject followed the presentation of his request. The
House had not been satisfied with the report, and recommitted
it to the committee for further examination. After the recom-
mitment of the report, the Secretaries were brought before the
committee and examined, so that their testimony reached the
House in that mode. The question was never put to the House
whether they would or would not receive the Secretaries in the
House, but whether they should adopt the report, or recommit
it and order the committee to take further testimony. They
did the latter. The proposition to admit them to the House
was not directly acted upon at all.

Before leaving this branch of the subject I must refer to the
opinion of Mr. Madison as expressed in the debate of Novem-
ber 13, 1792, on the question of admitting the Secretaries to the
House to take part in the investigation of St. Clair. This was
the only quotation, I believe, which the gentleman from Ver-
mont found to apply directly to the point at issue. It is true
that Mr. Madison did say he objected to the House resolution
on constitutional grounds.^ But he did not state what those
constitutional grounds were. It is a little remarkable that he
who had in 1789 spoken and voted for the Treasury Act au-
thorizing the Secretary to report in person or in writing, as
either House might direct, should declare only three years later
that it was unconstitutional to let the Secretary come before the
House to give information or testimony. Perhaps, sir, a little
light from history will help to explain Mr. Madison's singular
position. My friend from Vermont will remember that within
those three years Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton had become
seriously alienated from each other, and the gifted authors of
the Federalist were friends no longer. The great party strife

^ See Annals, Second Congress, p. 680.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS. 69

had begun, and they had taken opposite sides, Mr. Jefferson
leading one party, Mr. Madison following; and, Mr. Hamilton
leading the other, his friends, the Federalists, following him. It
is not, therefore, very surprising that Mr. Madison should have
been influenced, like others, by personal feeling, or at least by
his political differences with the Secretary of the Treasury. It
is well known that his political opinions were greatly changed
by the influence of Mr. Jefferson.

The fifth and last discussion to which I shall refer occurred
on the 19th of November,* 1792, on a resolution of the House
directing the Secretary of the Treasury to report a plan for the
reduction of the public debt. The question of the constitu-
tionality of his reporting a plan at all, again arose. The whole
ground was again gone over. Notwithstanding Madison's rec-
ord in 1789, he opposed the resolution; but it was passed
against him by the decisive vote of thirty-one to twenty-five.
So that even down to that day, after parties had taken their
groundi-'after Madison and Hamilton had become antagonistic,
after all the fierceness of personal feeling was awakened, still
the House determined that the law should stand as it was
enacted by the First Congress.

As the result of all these discussions, the custom obtained to
receive reports and information from the heads of Departments
in writing rather than in person. That custom has now almost
the force of law. But while the Treasury Act of 1789 remains
on our statute-book, we have a clear right to change the cus-
tom. I claim that, by a simple resolution of the House of Rep-
resentatives alone, we can now call the Secretary of the Treasury
here to explain in person any plan or measure of his, and he is
bound to come. The Senate can do the same for itself. The
very law which establishes his office and builds up his Depart-
ment makes it obligatory upon him to come when thus ordered.
This is true only of the Secretary of the Treasury.

I hold it, then, fairly established, that the measure before us
is clearly within the scope of our constitutional powers ; that it
is only a question how a thing shall be done, the thing to be
done being already provided by law. The heads of Depart-
ments do now make known their plans and views ; they do now
communicate to the House all that this resolution contemplates
that they shall communicate. It is only a question of mode.
They now communicate with the pen. This resolution proposes

70 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

to add the tongue to the pen, the voice to the document, the
explanation to the text, and nothing more. It is simply a
proposition to add to our facilities by having the Secretaries
here to explain orally what they have already transmitted in
documentary form.

And this brings me to the third and last point that I propose
to examine in this discussion, — the policy of the proposed
change, on which, I admit, there is much room for difference of
opinion. The committee have given a very exhaustive state-
ment of its advantages in their report, and I will only enlarge
upon a few points in their statement.

And, first of all, the proposed change will increase our facili-
ties for full and accurate information as the basis of legislative
action. There are some gentlemen here who doubt whether we
have a right to demand information from the heads of Depart-
ments. Do we get that information as readily, as quickly, and as
fully as we need it? Let me read an extract illustrative of the
present plan. The President of the United States, in his last
annual message to Congress, says : " The Report of the Sec-
retary of War, and accompanying documents, will detail the
campaigns of the armies in the field since the date of the last
annual message, and also the operations of the several adminis-
trative bureaus of the War Department during the last year.
It will also specify the measures deemed essential for the national
defence, and to keep up and supply the requisite military force."
Has that report been received ? This message was delivered to
us at the commencement of the present session; we are now
within five weeks of its close ; but to this hour we have had no
report from the Secretary of War, no official advice from him in
reference to the " measures deemed essential for the national
defence, and to keep up and supply the requisite military force."
We have been working in the dark, and it is only as we have
reconnoitred the War Department, and forced ourselves in
sidewise and edgewise, that we have been able to learn what is
considered essential for the national defence. Had this resolu-
tion been in force, we should long ago have had his report in
our hands, or his good and sufficient reason for withhold-
ing it.

I call the attention of the House to the fact, that our table
is groaning under the weight of resolutions asking information
from the several Departments that have not been answered.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS. Ji

Who does not remember that, at a very early day of the session,
a resolution, introduced by a member from Indiana,^ was unan-
imously adopted, asking why the order of the House had been
neglected, and we had not been furnished with the information ?
But this also has fallen a brutum fulmen ; we have received no
answer. Could these things be, if the members of the legisla-
tive and executive departments were sitting in council together?
Should we not long ago have had the information, or known
the reason why we did not have it?

On the subject of information, I have a word more to say.
We want information more in detail than we can get by the
present mode. For example, it would have aided many of us,
a few days since, when the Loan Bill was under consideration,
if the Secretary of the Treasury had been here to tell us pre-
cisely what he intended in regard to an increase of the volume
of the currency under the provisions of the bill. We want to
understand each other thoroughly; and when this is done, it
will remove a large share of the burdens of legislation.

One other point on the policy of the measure. I want this
joint resolution passed to readjust the relations between the
executive and legislative departments, and to readjust them so
that there shall be greater responsibility to the legislative de-
partment than there now is, and that that responsibility shall
be made to rest with greater weight upon the shoulders of the
executive authority. I am surprised that both the gentleman
from Vermont and the gentleman from Ohio declare that this
measure would aggrandize the executive authority. I must say
that, to me, it is one objection to this plan, that it may have
exactly the opposite effect. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the
fame of Jefferson is waning, and the fame of Hamilton wax-
ing, in the estimation of the American people, and that we
are gravitating towards a stronger government I am glad we
are, and I hope this measure will cause the heads of Depart-
ments to become so thoroughly acquainted with the details of
their office as to compensate for the restrictions imposed upon
them. Who does not know that the enactment of this law will
tend to bring our ablest men into the Cabinet of the republic?
Who does not know that, if a man is to be responsible for his
executive acts, and also be able to tell why he proposes new
measures, and to comprehend intelligently the whole scope of

1 Mr. Holman.

y2 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

his duties, weak men will shrink from taking such places?
Who does not know that it will call out the best talent of the
land, both executive and parliamentary? What is the fact now?
I venture to assert, that the mass of our executive information
comes from the heads of bureaus, or perhaps from the chief
clerks of bureaus, or other subordinates unknown to the legisla-
tive body. I would have it, that, when these men bring infor-
mation before us, they shall themselves be possessed of the last
items of that information, so that they can explain them as
fully as the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means
ever explains his measures when he offers them to the House.

One more word, Mr. Speaker. Instead of seeing the picture
which the gentleman from Ohio^ has painted to attract our
minds from the subject-matter itself to the mere gaudiness of
his farcical display, instead of seeing that unworthy and un-
manly exhibition in this House which he has described, I would
see in its place the executive heads of the government giving
information to, and consulting with, the representatives of the
people in an open and undisguised way. Sir, the danger to
American liberty is not from open contact with departments,
but from that unseen, intangible influence which characterizes
courts, crowns, and cabinets. Who does not know, and who
does not feel, how completely the reason of a member may be
stultified by the written dictum of some head of Department,
that he thinks a measure good or bad, wise or unwise? I want
that head of Department to tell me why ; I want him to appeal
to my reason, and not lecture me ex catkedrUy and desire me to
follow his lead just because he leads. I do not believe in any
prescriptive right to determine what legislation shall be. No,
sir; it is the silent, secret influence that saps and undermines
the fabric of republics, and not the open appeal, the collision
between intellects, the array of facts.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this measure will be fairly con-
sidered. If it do not pass now, the day will come, I believe,
when it will pass. When that day comes, I expect to see a
higher type of American statesmanship, not only in the Cabinet,
but also in the legislative halls.

1 Mr. Cox.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ABOLISHING SLAVERY.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 13, 1865.

February 10, 1864, Mr. Lyman Trambull, of Illinois, reported to the
Senate, from the Committee on the Judiciary, this Joint Resolution : —

" Be it resolved, etc., etc.. That the following article be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legis-
latures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said
Constitution, namely : —

"Article XIII. Sect. i. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.

"Sect. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appro-
priate legislation."

April 8 following, this resolution passed the Senate. June 15, it was
rejected in the House. The same day, a motion to reconsider the vote
was entered. At the next session, January 6, 1865, ^^^ motion to recon-
sider was taken up and discussed at length. On this motion, January 13,
Mr. Garfield made the speech that follows. The 31st of the same month
the question to reconsider carried, and the same day the resolution was
adopted. December 18, 1865, the Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, issued
his certificate to the effect that, the requisite number of States having
ratified the proposed amendment, it had become valid to all mtents and
purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States.

MR. SPEAKER, — We shall never know why slavery dies so
hard in this republic and in this hall till we know why sin
has such longevity and Satan is immortal. With marvellous
tenacity of existence, it has outlived the expectations of its

74 AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLA VER Y.

friends and the hopes of its enemies. It has been declared here
and elsewhere to be in all the several stages of mortality, —
wounded, dying, dead. The question was raised by my col-
league^ yesterday whether it was indeed dead, or only in a
troubled sleep. I know of no better illustration of its condition
than is found in Sallust's admirable history of the great conspir-
ator Catiline, who, when his final battle was fought and lost, his
army broken and scattered, was found, far in advance of his own
troops, lying among the dead enemies of Rome, yet breathing a
little, but exhibiting in his countenance all that ferocity of spirit
which had characterized his life. So, sir, this body of slavery
lies before us among the dead enemies of the republic, mortally
wounded, impotent in its fiendish wickedness, but with its old
ferocity of look, bearing the unmistakable marks of its infernal
origin.

Who does not remember that thirty years ago — a short period
in the life of a nafion — but little could be said with impunity in
these halls on the subject of slavery? How well do gentlemen
here remember the history of that distinguished predecessor of
mine, Joshua R. Giddings, lately gone to his rest, who, with his
forlorn hope of faithful men, took his life in his hand, and in the
name of justice protested against the great crime, and who stood
bravely in his place until his white locks, like the plume of
Henry of Navarre, marked where the battle for freedom raged
fiercest ! We can hardly realize that this is the same people,
and these the same halls, where now scarcely a man can be
found who will venture to do more than falter out an apology
for slavery, protesting in the same breath that he has no love for
the dying tyrant None, I believe, but that man of more than
supernal boldness from the city of New York,^ has ventured, this
session, to raise his voice in favor of slavery for its own sake.
He still sees in its features the reflection of beauty and divinity,
and only he. " How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,
son of the morning ! How art thou cut down to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations ! " Many mighty men have
been slain by thee ; many proud ones have humbled themselves
at thy feet. All along the coast of our political sea these vic-
tims of slavery lie like stranded wrecks, broken on the headlands
of freedom. How lately did its advocates, with impious bold-
ness, maintain it as God's own, to be venerated and cherished as

1 Mr. Cox. a Mr. Wood.

AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY. 75

divine ! It was another and higher form of civilization. It was
the holy evangel of America dispensing its mercies to a benighted
race, and destined to bear countless blessings to the wilder-
ness of the West. In its mad arrogance, it lifted its hand to
strike down the fabric of the Union, and since that fatal day it
has been a " fugitive and a vagabond in the earth." Like the
spirit that Jesus cast out, it has, since then, been " seeking rest
and finding none." It has sought in all the corners of the
republic to find some hiding-place in which to shelter itself from
the death it so richly deserves. It sought an asylum in the
untrodden territories of the West, but with a whip of scorpions
indignant freemen drove it thence. I do not believe that a loyal
man can now be found who would consent that it should again
enter them. It has no hope of harbor there. It found no pro-
tection or favor in the hearts or consciences of the freemen of
the republic, and has fled for its last hope of safety behind the
shield of the Constitution. We propose to 'follow it there, and
drive it thence, as Satan was exiled from heaven. But now, in
the hour of its mortal agony, in this hall, it has found a
defender.

My gallant colleague^ (for I recognize him as a gallant and
able man) plants himself at the door of his darling, and bids de-
fiance to all assailants. He has followed slavery in its flight,
until at last it has reached the great temple where liberty is en-
shrined, the Constitution of the United States ; and there, in that
last retreat, declares that no hand shall strike it. He reminds
me of that celebrated passage in the great Latin poet in which
the serpents of the sea, when they had destroyed Laocoon and
his sons, fled to the heights of the Trojan citadel, and coiled
their slimy lengths around the feet of the tutelar goddess, and
were covered by the orb of her shield. So, under the guidance
of my colleague, slavery, gorged with the blood of ten thousand
freemen, has climbed to the high citadel of American nationality,
and coiled itself securely, as he believes, around the feet of the
statue of Justice and under the shield of the Constitution of the
United States. We desire to follow it even there, and kill it
beside the very altar of liberty. Its blood can never make
atonement for the least of its crimes.

But the gentleman has gone further. He is not content that
the snaky sorceress shall be merely wider the protection of the

1 Mr. Pendleton.

'je AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLA VER Y.

Constitution. In his view, by a strange metamorphosis, slavery
becomes an invisible essence, and takes up its abode in the very
grain and fibre of the Constitution ; and when we would strike
it, he says : " I cannot point out any express clause that prohibits
you from destroying slavery; but I find a prohibition in the
intent and meaning of the Constitution, t go under the surface,
out of sight, into the very genius of it, and in that invisible
domain slavery is enshrined, and there is no power in the republic
to drive it thence." That I may do no injustice to my colleague,
I will read from his speech of day before yesterday the passage
to which I refer : —

"My colleague from the Toledo district,^ in the speech which he
made the other day, told us, with reference to this point : * If I read the
Constitution aright, and understand the force of language, the section
which I have just quoted is to-day free from all limitations and condi-
tions save two, one of which provides that the suffrage of the several
States in tlie Senate shall be equal, and that no State shall lose this
equality by any amendment of the Constitution without its consent;
the other relates to taxation. These are the only conditions and limita-
tions.* I deny it. I assert that there is another limitation stronger even
than the letter of the Constitution ; and that is to be found in its intent,
and its spirit, and its foundation idea. I put the question which has
been put before in this debate : Can three fourths of the States constitu-
tionally change this government, and make it an autocracy ? It is not

prohibited by the letter of the Constitution It does not come

within the two classes of limitations and conditions asserted by my
colleague. Why is it that this change cannot be made ? I will tell you
why. It is because republicanism lies at the very foundation of our
system of government, and to overthrow that idea is not to amend, but
to subvert the Constitution of the United States ; and I say that if three
fourths of the States should undertake to pass an amendment of that
kind, and Rhode Island alone dissented, she would have the right to
resist by force. It would be her duty to resist by force ; and her cause
would be sacred in the eyes of just men, and sanctified in the eyes of a
just God.'' 2

Jefferson Davis and his fellow-conspirators will ask for no bet-
ter defence of their rebellion. South Carolina will ask no more
than to be placed in the same category with Rhode Island — in
the gentleman's argument. South Carolina being her own judge,
her cause is " sacred in the eyes of just men, and sanctified in
the eyes of a just God." He goes behind the letter of the Con-

1 Mr. Ashley. ^ Congressional Globe, Jan. ii, 1865, pp. 221, 222.

AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLA VER K ^^

stitution, and finds a refuge for slavery in its intent ; and with
that intent he declares that we have no right to deal in the way
of amendment.

But he has gone even deeper than the spirit and intent of the
Constitution. He has announced a discovery to which I am
sure no other statesman will lay claim. He has found a domain
where slavery can no more be reached by human law than the
hfe of Satan by the sword of Michael. He has marked the
hither boundary of this newly discovered continent, in his
response to the question of the gentleman from lowa.^ I will
read it : "I will not be drawn now into a discussion with the
gentleman as to the origin of slavery, nor to the law which lies
behind the Constitution of the United States, and behind the
governments of the States, by which these people are held in
slavery." Not finding anything in the words and phrases of
the Constitution that forbids an amendment abolishing slavery,
he goes behind all human enactments, and far away, among the
eternal equities, he finds a primal law which overshadows states,
nations, and constitutions, as space envelops the universe, and by
its solemn sanctions one human being can hold another in per-
petual slavery. Surely human ingenuity has never gone farther
to protect a malefactor or defend a crime. ^ I shall make no
argument with my colleague on this point; for in that high court
to which he appeals eternal justice dwells with freedom, and
slavery has never entered.

I now turn to the main point of his argument. He has given
us the key to his theory of the Constitution in the three words
which the gentleman from Rhode Island ^ commented upon last
evening. Upon those words rests the strength or weakness of
his position. He describes the Constitution of the United States
as a ** compact of confederation." If I understand the gentleman,
he holds that each State is sovereign ; that in their sovereign
capacity, as the source and fountain of power, the States, each
for itself, ratified the Constitution which the Convention had
framed. What powers they did not grant they reserved. They
did not grant to the Federal government the right to control
the subject of slavery. That right still resides in the States
severally. Hence no amendment of the Constitution by three
fourths of the States can legally affect slavery in the remaining
fourth. Hence no amendment by the modes pointed out in

1 Mr. Wilson. i Mr. Jenckcs.

78 AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY.

the Constitution can reach it. This, I believe, is a succinct and
just statement of his argument The whole question turns upon
the sovereignty of the States. Are they sovereign and inde-
pendent now ? Were they ever so ? I shall endeavor to answer.
I appeal to the facts of history, and, to bring them clearly before
us, I affirm : —

I. That prior to the 4th of July, 1776, the Colonies were
neither free nor independent. Their sovereignty was lodged
in the Crown of Great Britain. I believe no man will deny
this. It was admitted in the first Declaration of Rights, put
forth by the Revolutionary Congress that, in 1 774, assembled
in Philadelphia to pray for a redress of grievances. That
body expressly admitted that the sovereignty of the Colonies
was lodged in the Crown of Great Britain. It has been taught
by Jay and Story, and has been so decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States.^

II. On the 4th of July, 1776, the sovereignty was withdrawn
from the British Crown, by the whole people of the Colonies,
and lodged in the Revolutionary Congress. No Colony de-
clared itself free and independent. Neither Virginia, New York,
nor Massachusetts declared itself free and independent of the
Crown of Great Britain. The declaration was made not even
by all the Colonies as colonies, but in the name and by the au-
thority of "the good people of these Colonies," as one people.
In the following memorable declaration the sovereignty was
transferred from the Crown of Great Britain to \ii^ people of the
Colonies : —

" We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America,
in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the
authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and
declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free
and independent States ; that they are absolved fix)m all allegiance to
the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and
the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved ; and that
as free and independent States they have fuU power to levy war, con-
clude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other
acts and things which independent states may of right do."

In vindication of this view, I read from Justice Story's Com-
mentaries on the Constitution : —

^ See Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419.

AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY. 79

" The Colonies did not severally act for themselves and proclaim their
own independence. It is true that some of the states had previously
formed incipient governments for themselves, but it was done in com-
pliance with the recommendations of Congress The declaration

of independence of all the Colonies was the united act of all. It was
* a declaration by the representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled * ; * by the delegates appointed by the good people
of the Colonies/ as in a prior declaration of rights they were called. It
was not an act done by the State governments then organized ; nor by
persons chosen by them. It was emphatically the act of the whole
people of the United Colonies, by the instrumentality of their representa-
tives, chosen for that among other purposes. It was not an act compe-
tent to the State governments, or any of them, as organized under their
charters, to adopt Those charters neither contemplated the case nor
provided for it. It was an act of original inherent sovereignty by the
people themselves, resulting from their right to change the fonp of gov-
ernment, and to institute a new one whenever necessary for their safety
and happiness. So the Declaration of Independence treats it. No
State had presumed of itself to form a new government, or to provide
for the exigencies of the times, without consulting Congress on the
subject, and when any acted, it was in pursuance of the recommenda-
tion of Congress. It was, therefore, the achievement of the whole for
the benefit of the whole.

" The people of the United Colonies made the United Colonies free
and independent States, and absolved them from all allegiance to the
British Crown. The Declaration of Independence has accordingly
always been treated as an act of paramount and sovereign authority,
complete and perfect per se, and ipso facto working an entire dissolution
of all political connection with and allegiance to Great Britain. And this,
not merely as a practical fact, but in. a legal and constitutional view of
the matter by courts of justice." ^

When the people of the Colonies became free, having with-
drawn sovereignty from the Crown of Great Britain, where did
they lodge it? Not in the States; but, so far as they delegated
it at all, they lodged it in the Revolutionary Congress then sitting
in Philadelphia. My colleague dissents. I ask his attention
again to the language of this distinguished commentator : —

" In the next place, we have seen that the power to do this act was
not derived from the State governments, nor was it done generally with
their co-operation. The question then naturally presents itself, if it is
to be considered as a national act, in what manner did the Colonies

1 Book II. Sec. 211.

8o AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY.

become a nation, and in what manner did Congress become possessed
of this national power? The true answer must be, that as soon as
Congress assumed powers and passed measures which were in their
nature national, to that extent the people from whose acquiescence and
consent they took effect must be considered as agreeing to form a
nation." *

Mr. Pendleton. I desire to ask my colleague from what power the
delegates who sat in that Congress derived their authority to make the
Declaration ; whether they did not derive it from the Colonies, or the
States, if the gentleman prefers that word, and whether each delegate
did not speak in the Congress for the State government which author-
ized him to speak there ?

I say, in answer to the point the gentleman makes, as I have
already said, and in the language of this distinguished com-
mentator, that the moment the Revolutionary Congress assumed
national prerogatives, and the people by their silence consented,
that moment the people of the Colonies were constituted a na-
tion, and that Revolutionary Congress became the authorized
government of the nation. But the Declaration was made
"by the authority of the good people," and hence it was their
declaration.

Mr. Pendleton. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him whether
from that moment they became the representatives of the nation, or
whether they still retained their position as representatives of the
States ?

They were both. They were still representatives of the
States; but the new function of national representatives was
added. They then took upon them that which now belongs to
the gentleman, the twofold quality of State citizenship and
national citizenship. The gentleman is twice a citizen, subject
to two jurisdictions ; and so were they.

I shall still further fortify my position by reading again from
Justice Story : —

" From the moment of the Declaration of Independence, if not for
most purposes at an antecedent period, the United Colonies must be
considered as being a nation de facto, having a general government
over it, created and acting by the general consent of the people of all
the Colonies. The powers of that government were not, and indeed
could not, be well defined. But still its exclusive sovereignty in many

^ Book II. Sec. 213.

AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY. 8i

cases was firmly established, and its controlling power over the States
was in most, if not in all national measures, universally admitted." ^

III. On the 1st of March, 1781, the sovereignty of the na-
tion was lodged, by the people, in the Articles of Confedera-
tion. The government thus formed, was a confederacy. Its
Constitution might properly be styled a ** Compact of Confed-
eration," though by its terms it established a " perpetual union/*
and left small ground for the doctrine of secession.

IV. On the 21st of June, 1788,^ our national sovereignty
was lodged, by the people, in the Constitution of the United
States, where it still resides, and for its preservation our armies
are to-day in the field. In all these stages of development,
from colonial dependence to full-orbed nationality, the people,
not the States, have been omnipotent. They have abolished,
established, altered, and amended, as suited their sovereign
pleasure. For the greater security of liberty, they chose to
distribute the functions of government. They left to each State
the regulation of its local and municipal affairs, and endowed
the Federal republic with the high functions of national sover-
eignty. They made the Constitution. That great charter tells
its own story best in the preamble: —

" We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the
common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."

Not '*We, the sovereign States," do enter into a league or form
a " compact of confederation.*'

If the gentleman looks, then, for a kind of political '* apos-
tolic succession '* of American sovereignty, he will find that
neither Colonies nor States were in the royal line ; but this is
the genealogy : first, the Crown and Parliament of Great Brit-
ain ; second, the Revolutionary Congress ; third, the Articles of
Confederation ; fourth, and now, the Constitution of the United
States ; and all this by the authority of the people. Now, if no
one of the Colonics was sovereign and independent, when and
how did any of the States become so? The gentleman must
show us by what act it was done, and where the deed was re-

^ Story on the Constitution, Book II. Sec. 215.

' The date of the ratification of the Constitution by the ninth State, — New
Hampshire.
VOL L 6

82 AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY.

corded. I think I have shown that his position has no foundation
in history, and the argument based upon it falls to the ground.

In framing and establishing the Constitution, what restrictions
were laid upon the people? Absolutely no human power be-
yond themselves. No barriers confined them but the laws of
nature, the laws of God, their love of justice, and their aspira-
tions for liberty. Over that limitless expanse they ranged at
will, and out of such materials as their wisdom selected they
built the stately fabric of our government. That Constitution,
with its Amendments, is the latest and the greatest utterance
of American sovereignty. The hour is now at hand when that
majestic sovereign, for the benignant purpose of securing still
further the ** blessings of liberty," is about to put forth another
oracle, — is about to declare that universal freedom shall be the
supreme law of the land. Show me the power that is author-
ized to forbid it.

The lapse of eighty years has not abated one jot or tittle from
the original sovereignty of the American people. They made
the Constitution what it is. They could have made it otherwise
then ; they can make it otherwise now.

But my colleague ^ has planted himself on the intent of the
Constitution. On that point I ask him by what means the
will of this nation reaches the citizen, with its obligations?
Only as that will is revealed in the logical and grammatical
meaning of the words and phrases of the written Consti-
tution. Beyond this, there is, there can be, no legal force or
potency. If the amending power granted in the Constitution
be in any way abridged or restricted, such restriction must be
found in the just meaning of the instrument itself Any other
doctrine would overthrow the whole fabric of jurisprudence.
What are the limitations of the amending power? Plainly and
only these : " That no amendment which may be made prior to
the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth
clauses in the ninth section of the first Article; and that no
State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage
in the Senate." ^ The first restriction, being bounded by the
year 1808, is of course functtis officio, and no longer operative;
the last is still binding. The gentleman does not claim that any
other sentence is restrictive ; but he would have us believe there
is something not written down, a tertium quid, a kind of exha-

* Mr. Pendleton. a Constitution, Art. V.

AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY. 83

lation rising out of the depths of the Constitution, that has the
power of itself to stay the hand of the people of this great
republic in their attempt to put away an evil that is deleterious
to the nation's life. He would lead us in pursuit of these
intangible shadows, would place us in the dominion of vague,
invisible powers, that exhale, like odors, from the Constitution,
but are more potent than the Constitution itself. Such an ignis
fatuus I am not disposed to follow, especially when it leads to
a hopeful future for human slavery. •

I cannot agree with my colleague, and the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts,^ who unite in declaring that no
amendment to the Constitution can be made which would be in
conflict with its objects as declared in the preamble. What spe-
cial immunity was granted to that first paragraph? Could not
our forefathers have adopted a different preamble in the begin-
ning? Could they not have employed other words, and declared
other objects, as the basis of their Constitution? If they could
have made a different preamble, declaring other and different
objects, so can we now declare other objects in our amendments.
The preamble is itself amendable, just as is every clause of the
Constitution, excepting only the ones already referred to. But
this point is not necessary in the case we are now considering.
We need no change of the preamble to enable us to abolish
slavery. It is only by the final overthrow of slavery that the
objects of the preamble can be fully realized. By that means
alone can we "establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

The gentleman 2 puts another case which I wish to notice. He
says that nine of the thirteen original Colonies adopted the Con-
stitution, and by its very terms it was binding only on the nine.
So if three fourths of the States should pass this amendment it
would not bind the other fourth. In commenting upon this
clause, Judge Tucker, of Virginia, in his appendix to Blackstone,
says that if the four Colonies had not adopted the Constitution
they would have been a foreign people. The writers of the
Federalist hold a different doctrine, and fall back upon the origi-
nal right of the nation to preserve itself, and say that the nine
States would have had the right to compel the other four to
come in. But the question is unimportant, from the fact that
they did come in and adopt the Constitution. The contract

1 Mr. Boutwell. * Mr. Pendleton.

84 AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLA VER K

once ratified, and obligations once taken, they became an inte-
gral part of an indivisible nation, as indivisible as a state. The
argument is irrelevant; for the mode of adopting the Constitu-
tion is one thing, the mode pointed out in the Constitution for
adopting amendments to it is quite, another. The two have no
necessary relation to each other. I therefore agree with my
colleague from the Columbus district,^ that, except in the two
cases of limitation, two thirds of Congress and three fourths of
the States can do anything in the way of amendment, being
bounded only by their sense of duty to God and the country.
The field is then fully open before us.

On the justice of the amendment itself no arguments are
necessary. The reasons crowd in on every side. To enumer-
ate them would be a work of superfluity. To me it is a matter
of great surprise that gentlemen on the other side should wish
to detey the death of slavery. I can only account for it on the
ground of long-continued familiarity and friendship. I should
be glad to hear them say of slavery, their beloved, as did the
jealous Moor, —

" Yet she must die, else she ni betray more men."

Has she not betrayed and slain men enough? Are they not
strewn over a thousand battle-fields? Is not this Moloch al-
ready gorged with the bloody feast? Its best friends know that
its final hour is fast approaching. The avenging gods are on
its track. Their feet are not now, as of old, shod with wool, nor
slow and stately stepping, but winged like Mercury's to bear the
swift message of vengeance. No human power can avert the
final catastrophe.

I did not intend, Mr. Speaker, ever again to address the
House on the subject of slavery. I had hoped we might, with-
out a struggle, at once and forever remove it from the theatre
of American politics, and turn our thoughts to those other and
larger fields now opening before us. But when I saw the bold
and determined efforts put forth in this House yesterday for its
preservation, I could not resist my inclination to strike one blow,
in the hope of hastening its doom.

» Mr. Cox.

SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

ORATION DELIVERED AT RAVENNA, OHIO.

July 4, 1865.

July 4, i860, Mr. Garfield delivered an oration at Ravenna, Ohio,
discussing such topics as generally drew the attention of cultivated men
on such occasions before the war. Again, July 4, 1865, ^^ delivered a
second oration at the same place. He began the second oration with
calling attention to the changes that had been wrought since the first
one was delivered. He traced the progress of the sentiment of liberty
from the opening of the war to the Emancipation Proclamation, and then
to the coming of peace. The results of the war, he said, were these : —

1. A clear discernment upon the part of the Northern people of the
wickedness of slavery.

2. A stronger nationality. Out of the ruins of slavery and treason had
grown up a stronger and grander nationality than we had ever known
before. An old American statesman said that the stability of the govern-
ment would depend upon its power directly to enforce its laws. The
power of our government had been amply demonstrated by the gen-
erous response to its calls for men and money for the war. We
understand now that we do not owe allegiance to Washington by way
of Columbus, but in an air line,

3. The government had been proved stronger than any of its depend-
encies. Cotton was declared King, but Cotton did not save the re-
bellion. The Republic was greater than any product, than any interest,
than any State or man.

4. The character of the people had grown. " We have more faith
in the American people than before the war. We have learned to know
them and respect them. The boys who went from us come back to us
solid men. They have been engaged in a righteous work. No man
can be inspired with a great and noble purpose without being better for
it The destiny of the nation is safer and surer than ever before.
We have learned how to appreciate its beneficence and its virtue, and

\

86 SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

we shall never be likely to forget those who have come back to us
from its battle-fields."

Before this point was reached, Mr. Garfield had divided the national
drama into two acts, the military act and the civil or the restorative act.
Now he addressed himself to the second of these acts, or more narrowly
the suffrage question. This oration was not fully reported, but the
following portion, relating to suffrage, was prepared in manuscript by the
author, and was printed at the time from his notes.

FELLOW-CITIZENS, — We may now say that the past,
with all its wealth of glorious associations, is secure.
The air is filled with brightness; the horizon is aglow with
hope. The future is full of magnificent possibilities. But God
has committed to us a trust which we must not, we dare not
overlook. By the dispensation of his Providence, the chains
have been stricken from four millions of the inhabitants of this
Republic, and he has shown us the truth of that early utterance
of Abraham Lincoln's, — **This is a world of compensations;
and he who would be no slave must have no slave. Those who
deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under
a just God cannot long retain it."

In the great crisis of the war, God brought us face to face
with the mighty truth, that we must lose our own freedom or
grant it to the slave. In the extremity of our distress, we called
upon the black man to help us save the Republic ; and, amid
the very thunders of battle, we made a covenant with him,
sealed both with his blood and with ours, and witnessed by
Jehovah, that, when the nation was redeemed, he should be
free, and share with us its glories and its blessings. The Omnis-
cient Witness will appear in judgment against us if we do not
fulfil that covenant. Have we done it? Have we given freedom
to the black man? What is freedom? Is it mere negation?
Is it the bare privilege of not being chained, — of not being
bought and sold, branded and scourged? If this is all, then
freedom is a bitter mockery, a cruel delusion, and it may well
be questioned whether slavery were not better. But liberty is
no negation. It is a substantial, tangible reality. It is the
realization of those imperishable truths of the Declaration,
** that all men are created equal " ; that the sanction of all just

SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY. 87

government is " the consent of the governed." Can these be
realized until each man has a right to be heard on all matters
relating to himself? The plain truth is, that each man knows
his own interest best It has been said, " If he is compelled to
pay, if he may be compelled to fight, if he be required implicitly
to obey, he should be legally entitled to be told what for ; to
have his consent asked, and his opinion counted at what it is
worth. There ought to be no pariahs in a full-grown and civil-
ized nation, no persons disqualified except through their own
default." I would not insult your intelligence by discussing so
plain a truth, had not the passion and prejudice of this genera-
tion called in question the very axioms of the Declaration.

But it will be asked, Is it safe to admit to the elective fran-
chise the great mass of ignorant and degraded blacks, so lately
slaves? Here indeed is the great practical question, to the
solution of which should be brought all the wisdom and en-
lightenment of our people. I am fully persuaded that some
degree of intelligence and culture should be required as a quali-
fication for the right of suffrage. I have no doubt that it would
be better if no man were allowed to vote who cannot read his
ballot or the Constitution of the United States, and write his
name or copy in a legible hand a sentence from the Declaration
of Independence. Make any such wise restriction of suffrage,
but let it apply to all alike. Let us not commit ourselves to
the absurd and senseless dogma that the color of the skin shall
be the basis of suffrage, the talisman of liberty. I admit that
it is perilous to confer the franchise upon the ignorant and de-
graded; but if an educational test cannot be established, let
suffrage be extended to all men of proper age, regardless of
color. It may well be questioned whether the negro does not
understand the nature of our institutions better than the equally
ignorant foreigner.' He was intelligent enough to understand
from the beginning of the war that the destiny of his race was
involved in it. He was intelligent enough to be true to that
Union which his educated and traitorous master was endeavor-
ing to destroy. He came to us in the hour of our sorest need,
and by his aid, under God, the Republic was saved. Shall we
now be guilty of the unutterable meanness, not only of thrust-
ing him beyond the pale of its blessings, but of committing his
destiny to the tender mercies of those pardoned rebels who
have been so reluctantly compelled to take their feet from his

88 SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

neck and their hands from his throat? But some one says
it is dangerous at this time to make new experiments. I an-
swer, it is always safe to do justice. However, to grant suffrage
to the black man in this country is not innovation, but restora-
tion. It is a return to the ancient principles and practices of
the fathers. Let me refer you to a few facts in our history
which have been but little studied by' the people and politicians
of this generation.

1. During the war of the Revolution, and in 1788, the date of
the adoption of our national Constitution, there was but one
State among the thirteen whose constitution refused the right of
suffrage to the negro. That State was South Carolina. Some,
it is true, established a property qualification ; all made freedom
a prerequisite; but none save South Carolina made color a
condition of suffrage.

2. The Federal Constitution makes no such distinction, nor
did the Articles of Confederation. In the Congress of the Con-
federation, on the 25th of June, 1778, the fourth article was
under discussion. It provided that ** the free inhabitants of
each of these States — paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from
justice excepted — shall be entitled to all privileges and im-
munities of free citizens in the several States." The delegates
from South Carolina moved to insert between the words '* free
inhabitants" the word "white," thus denying the privileges and
immunities of citizenship to the colored man. According to
the rules of the convention, each State had but one vote.
Eleven States voted on the question. One was divided ; two
voted aye ; and eight voted no.^ It was thus early, and almost
unanimously, decided ^zX, freedom, not color, should be the test
of citizenship.

3. No Federal legislation prior to 1 8 12 placed any restriction
on the right of suffrage in consequence of the color of the citi-
zen. From 1789 to 1812 Congress passed ten separate laws
establishing new Territories. In all these, freedom, and not
color, was the basis of suffrage.

4. After nearly a quarter of a century of prosperity under the
Constitution, the spirit of slavery so far triumphed over the early
principles and practices of the government that, in 1812, South
Carolina and her followers in Congress succeeded in inserting
the word " white " in the suffrage clause of the act establishing

1 Elliot's Debates, Vol. I. p. 90.

SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY. 89

a territorial government for Missouri. One by one the Slave
States, and many of the free States, gave way before the crusade
of slavery against negro citizenship. In 181 7, Connecticut
caught the infection, and in her constitution she excluded the
negro from the ballot-box. In every other New England State
his ancient right of suffrage has remained and still remains un-
disturbed. Free negroes voted in Maryland till 1833 ; in North
Carolina, till 1835 ; in Pennsylvania, till 1838. It was the boast
of Cave Johnson of Tennessee that he owed his election to Con-
gress in 1828 to the free negroes who worked in his mills. They
were denied the suffrage in 1834, under the new constitution of
Tennessee, by a vote of thirty-three to twenty-three. As new
States were formed, their constitutions for the most part ex-
cluded the negro from citizenship. Then followed the shameful
catalogue of black laws — expatriation and ostracism in every
form — which have so deeply disgraced the record of legisla-
tion in many of the States.

I afRrm, therefore, that our present position is one of apos-
tasy ; and to give the ballot to the negro will be no innovation,
but a return to the old paths, — a restoration of that spirit of
liberty to which the sufferings and sacrifices of the Revolution
gave birth.

But if we had no respect for the early practices and traditions
of our fathers, we should still be compelled to meet the practical
question which will very soon be forced upon us for solution.
The necessity of putting down the rebellion by force of arms
was no more imperative than is that of restoring law, order, and
liberty in the States that rebelled. No duty can be more sacred
than that of maintaining and perpetuating the freedom which
the Proclamation of Emancipation gave to the loyal black men of
the South. If they are to be disfranchised, if they are to have
no voice in determining the conditions under which they are to
live and labor, what hope have they for the future? It will rest
with their late masters, whose treason they aided to thwart, to
determine whether negroes shall be permitted to hold property,
to enjoy the benefits of education, to enforce contracts, to have
access to the courts of justice, — in short, to enjoy any of those
rights which give vitality and value to freedom. Who can fail
to foresee the ruin and misery that await this race, to whom the
vision of freedom has been presented only to be withdrawn,
leaving them without even the aid which the master's selfish

90 SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

commercial interest in their life and service formerly afforded
them? Will these negroes, remembering the battle-fields on
which two hundred thousand of their number bravely fought,
and many thousands heroically died, submit to oppression as
tamely and peaceably as in the days of slavery? Under such
conditions, there could be no peace, no security, no prosperity.
I am glad to be able to fortify my position on this point by the
great name and ability of Theophilus Parsons, of the Harvard
Law School. In discussing the necessity of negro suffrage at a
recent public meeting in Boston, he says : —

" Some of the Southern States have among their statutes a law pro-
hibiting the education of a colored man under a heavy penalty. The
whole world calls this most inhuman, most infamous. And shall we say
to the whites of those States, * We give you complete and exclusive power
of legislating about the education of the blacks ; but beware, for if you
lift them by education from their present condition, you do it under the
penalty of forfeiting and losing your supremacy? * Will not slavery, with
nearly all its evils, and with none of its compensation, come back at once ?
Not under its own detested name ; it will call itself apprenticeship ; it
will put on the disguise of laws to prevent pauperism, by providing that
every colored man who does not work in some prescribed way shall be
arrested, and placed at the disposal of the authorities ; or it will do its
work by means of laws regulating wages and labor. However it be
done, one thing is certain : if we take from the slaves all the protection
and defence they found in slavery, and withhold from them all power of
self-protection and self-defence, the race must perish, and we shall be
their destroyers."

Another patriotic speaker thus justly sums up his conclu-
sions : ** We must choose between two results. With these
four millions of negroes, either you must have four millions of
disfranchised, disarmed, untaught, landless, thriftless, non-pro-
ducing, non-consuming, degraded men ; or else you must have
four millions of landholding, industrious, arms-bearing, and vot-
ing population. Choose between these two ! "

Bear with me, fellow-citizens, while I urge still another con-
sideration. By the Constitution, only three fifths of the slaves
were counted in forming the basis of Congressional representa-
tion. The Proclamation of Emancipation adds the other two
fifths, which at the next census will be more than two millions.
If the negro be denied the franchise, and the size of the House
of Representatives remain as now, we shall have fifteen addi-

SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY. 91

tional members of Congress from the States lately in rebellion,
without the addition of a single citizen to their population, and
we shall have fifteen less in the loyal States. This will not only
give six members of Congress to South Carolina, four sevenths
of whose people are negroes, but it will place the power of the
State, as well as the destiny of 412,000 black men, in the hands
of the 20,000 white men (less than the number of voters in our
own Congressional district) who, under the restricted suffrage
of that undemocratic State, exercise the franchise. Such an
unjust and unequal distribution of power would breed perpetual
mischief. The evils of the rotten borough system of England
would be upon us.

Indeed, we can find no more instructive lesson on the whole ^
question of suffrage than the history of its development in the
British empire. For more than four centuries, royal preroga-
tive and the rights of the people of England have waged per-
petual warfare. Often the result has appeared doubtful, often
the people have been driven to the wall, but they have always
renewed the struggle with unfaltering courage. Often have
they lost the battle, but they have always won the campaign.
Amidst all their reverses, each generation has found them
stronger, each half-century has brought them its year of jubi-
lee, and has added strength to the bulwark of law and breadth
to the basis of liberty. This contest has illustrated again and
again the saying that " eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
The growth of a city, the decay of a borough, the establish-
ment of a new manufacture, the enlargement of commerce, the
recognition of a new power, have, each in its turn, added new
and peculiar elements to the contest. Hallam says : " It would
be difficult, probably, to name any town of the least considera-
tion in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which did not, at
some time or other, return members to Parliament. This is so
much the case, that if, in running our eyes along the map,
we find any seaport, as Sunderland or Falmouth, or any in-
land town, as Leeds or Birmingham, which has never enjoyed
the elective franchise, we may conclude at once that it has
emerged from obscurity since the reign of Henry VIII." ^ It
was a doctrine old as the common law, maintained by our
Anglo-Saxon ancestors centuries before it was planted in the
American Colonies, that taxation and representation were insep-

> Constitutional History of England, Chap. XIII.

92 SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

arable correlatives, the one a duty based upon the other as a
right But the neglect of the government to provide a system
which made the Parliamentary representation conform to the
increase of population, and the growth and decadence of cities
and boroughs, had, by almost imperceptible degrees, disfran-
chised the great mass of the British people, and placed the
legislative power in the hands of a few leading families of the
realm. Towards the close of the last century the question of
Parliamentary reform assumed a definite shape, and since that
time has constituted one of the most prominent features in Brit-
ish politics. It was found not only that the basis of representa-
tion was unequal and unjust, but that the right of the elective
franchise was granted to but few of the inhabitants, and was
regulated by no fixed and equitable rule. Here I may quote
from May's Constitutional History : —

" In some of the corporate towns, the inhabitants pajring scot and lot,
and freemen, were admitted to vote ; in some, the freemen only ; and in
many, none but the governing body of the corporation. At Buckingham
and at Bewdley the right of election was confined to the bailiff and twelve
burgesses ; at Bath, to the mayor, ten aldermen, and twenty-four com-
mon-councilmen ; at Salisbury, to the mayor and corporation, consisting
of fifty-six persons. And where more popular rights of election were
acknowledged, there were often very few inhabitants to exercise them.
Gatton enjoyed a liberal franchise. All freeholders and inhabitants pay-
ing scot and lot were entitled to vote, but they only amounted to seven.
At Tavistock all freeholders rejoiced in the franchise, but there were
only ten. At St. Michael all inhabitants paying scot and lot were elec-
tors, but there were only seven.

" In 1 793 the Society of the Friends of the People were prepared to
prove that in England and Wales seventy members were returned by
thirty-five places in which there were scarcely any electors at all ; that
ninety members were returned by forty-six places with less than fifty
electors ; and thirty-seven members by nineteen places having not more
than one hundred electors. Such places were returning members, while
Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester were unrepresented; and the
members whom they sent to Parliament were the nominees of peers and
other wealthy patrons. No abuse was more flagrant than the direct con-
trol of peers over the constitution of the Lower House. The Duke of
Norfolk was represented by eleven members ; Lord Lonsdale by nine ;
Lord Darlington by seven ; the Duke of Rutland, the Marquis of Buck-
ingham, and Lord Carrington, each by six. Seats were held in both
Houses alike by hereditary right." ^

1 May's Constitutional History uf England, (Boston, i86S,) Vol. I. pp. 266, 267.

SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY. 93

♦

Scotland and Ireland were virtually disfranchised ; Edinburgh
and Glasgow, the two largest cities of Scotland, had each a
constituency of only thirty-three members. A majority of the
members of the House of Commons were elected by six thou-
sand voters. This state of affairs afforded ready opportunities
for the moneyed aristocracy to buy seats in Parliament, by the
purchase of a few voters in rotten boroughs ; and also enabled
the ministry to secure a servile majority in the Commons. The
corruption resulting from these conditions, as exhibited in the
latter half of the eighteenth century, can hardly be realized by
the present generation. They afford, however, an illustration
of the universal truth, that a government which does not draw
its inspiration of liberty, justice, and morality from the people
will soon become both tyrannical and corrupt.

In these facts we discover the cause of the popular discontent
and outbreaks which have so frequently threatened the stability
of the British throne and the peace of the English people. As
early as 1770 Lord Chatham said, ** By the end of this century,
either the Parliament must be reformed from within, or it will
be reformed with a vengeance from without." The disastrous
failure of Republicanism in France delayed the fulfilment of his
prophecy; but when, in 1832, the people were on the verge of
revolt, the government was reluctantly compelled to pass the
celebrated Reform Bill, which has taken its place in English
history beside Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights. It equal-
ized the basis of representation, and extended the suffrage to
the middle class; and though the property qualification prac-
tically excluded the workingman, a great step upward had been
taken, a concession had been made which must be followed by
others. The struggle is again going on. Its omens are not
doubtful. The great storm through which American liberty
has just passed gave a temporary triumph to the enemies of
popular right in England. But our recent glorious triumph is
the signal of disaster to tyranny, and victory for the people.
The liberal party in England are jubilant, and will never rest
until the ballot, that "silent vindicator of liberty," is in the hand
of the workingman, and the temple of English liberty rests on
the broad foundation of popular suffrage. Let us learn from
this, that suffrage and safety y like liberty and unio?t, are one and s,
inseparable.

It is related in ancient fable that one of the gods, dissatisfied A

94 SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

with the decrees of destiny, attempted to steal the box in which
were kept the decrees of the Fates ; but he found that it was
fastened to the throne of Jupiter by a golden chain, and to re-
move it would pull down the pillars of heaven. So is the
sacred ballot-box, which holds the decrees of freemen, linked
by the indissoluble bond of necessity to the pillars of the Re-
public ; and he who tampers with its decrees, or plucks it away
from its place in our temple, will perish amid the ruins he has
wrought.

But in view of the lessons of the years of contest that have
crowned the nation with victory, with the inspirations of liberty
and truth brightly lighting the pathway of the people, who can
doubt the equity of their voice ? The nations of the earth miist
not be allowed to point at us as pitiful examples of weak
selfishness. In the exigencies of this hour, our duty must be
so done that the eternal scrolls of justice will ever bear record
of the nobility of the nation's heart Animated, inspired, gen-
erous, fearless, in the work of liberty and truth, long will the
Republic live, a bulwark of God's immutable justice.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN

STATES.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

February i, 1866.

The title that this speech bears in the pamphlet edition issued by its
authof is " Freedmen's Bureau — Restoration of the Southern States."

" An Act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refu-
gees" was approved on March 3, 1865. At the next session, Congress
passed a bill to amend this act, and " for other purposes," which was
vetoed by President Johnson, February 19, 1866. Pending this bill in
the House of Representatives, Mr. Garfield made this speech. As he
does not deal directly with the bill, but discusses the general question of
Reconstruction, an analysis of the pending measure is not necessary.

Mr. Garfield began with remarking that the pending bill was one of a
series of measures which it was the duty of the House to consider and
act upon during the current session. He therefore proposed to " discuss
in connection with it the general question of the restoration of the States
lately in rebellion." A succinct statement of facts concerning the status
of the Reconstruction question at that time will throw much light upon
the speech, as well as upon all the speeches in which he discusses Re-
construction topics.

President Johnson's plan of reconstruction rested on this constitu-
tional theory : —

1. The Rebel States did not, as a matter of fact, secede. " All in-
tended acts of secession," he said, in his message of December 4, 1865,
"were from the beginning null and void."

2. Individuals had committed treason, and enough of them should be
punished to " make treason odious."

3. The Rebel State governments must share the fate of the Confed-
erate government. He said : " The State institutions are prostrated,
laid out on the ground, and they must be taken up and adapted to the
progress of events."

4. To " take up " their institutions and " adapt them to the progress
of events," State conventions must be held. These conventions would

96 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

frame constitutions, provide for holding elections, and do all other
things preliminary to State reorganization.

5. When these constitutions had been framed and ratified, and the
State governments fully set up, and Representatives and Senators chosen,
it would be the duty of Congress to admit the Representatives and Sena-
tors, thereby recognizing the States as in proper relations to the Union.
Certain terms and conditions the President proppsed to make ; as the
abolition of slavery, the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, and
the repudiation of the debts contracted in carrying on the Rebellion.

President Johnson promptly set about carrying his theory into execu-
tion. May 29, 1865, he issued his amnesty proclamation, removing all
political disabilities on the score of participation in rebellion, save in
certain excepted cases. Beginning the same day, he appointed Pro-
visional Governors in the several Rebel States, who were to call consti-
tutional conventions, and in all ways to co-operate with the people of
the States in creating new State institutions. This proviso, in substance
found in all the proclamations appointing said Governors, defined the
exercise of the elective franchise : —

" Provided f that in any election that may be hereafter held for choos-
ing delegates to any State Convention, as aforesaid, no person shall be
qualified as an elector, or shall be eligible as a member of such Conven-
tion, unless he shall have previously taken the oath of amnesty, as set
forth in the President's proclamation of May 29, a. d. 1865, and is a
voter qualified as prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the State
of Nortli Carolina in force immediately before the 20th day of May,
1 86 1, the date of the so-called Ordinance of Secession ; and the said
Convention, when convened, or the Legislature that may be thereafter
assembled, will prescribe the qualification of electors, and the eligibility
of persons to hold office under the Constitution and laws of the State,
a power the people of the several States composing the Federal Union
have rightfully exercised from the origin of the government to the pres-
ent time." * *

The Governors appointed by these proclamations hastened to perform
their parts. Conventions were held, constitutions framed and ratified,
and State officers elected. December 18, 1865, the President informed
Congress, in a special message, that the people of North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Ten-
nessee had reorganized their State governments, and were yielding obe-
dience to the laws of the United States. He now began to press for
the admission to Congress of their so-called Senators and Representa-
tives, and, February 19, 1866, he plainly told Congress that these States
were " entitled to enjoy their constitutional rights as members of the
Union."

^ The quotation is made from the North Carolina proclamation of May 29^ 1865.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 97

While differing widely among themselves both as to constitutional
theories and practical measures, the Republican leaders differed still
more widely from the President. At the beginning of his administration,
there was a want of full confidence in him on the part of the Repub-
lican party, and the breach widened as he progressively unfolded his
scheme. After February 19, 1866, it was irreparable. First, these
leaders held that the President arrogated quite too much authority to
the Executive, and relegated Congress to quite too humble a part.
Second, they objected to his plan on its merits; (i.) as failing properly
to punish treason ; (2.) as failing to assure the peace and protection of
Southern Unionists, especially the freedmen. Holding these views, the
Republican majority in Congress had, by a concurrent resolution of De-
cember 13, 1865, created a joint Committee on Reconstruction, direct-
ing said committee to " inquire into the conditions of the States of what
formed the so-called Confederate States of America, and report whether
they or any of them are entitled to be represented in either house of
Congress, with leave to report by bill or otherwise."

Congress promptly replied to the President's veto of the Freedmen*s
Bureau Bill, and his demand of February 19, 1866, that the recon-
structed States were "entitled to enjoy their constitutional rights as
members of the Union," by adopting a concurrent resolution to the
eflfect that "no Senator or Representative shall be admitted to either
Iwanch of Congress from any of said States until Congress shall have
declared such State entitled to such representation." (House, February
20; Senate, March 2.) The "series of measures" to which Mr. Gar-
field refers in his opening are the pending bill, the Fourteenth Amend-
ment, and the two bills reported by the Reconstruction Committee in
April following, designed to accomplish the work of reconstruction ; the
logical basis of all which measures is contained in the majority report
of the Reconstruction Committee, made June 18, 1866. At the time
Mr. Garfield made the following speech, these measures had not been
folly reported, nor had the final breach with the President occurred.
This recital of facts shows the attitude of the President and of Congress
at the period to which this speech belongs.

MR. SPEAKER, — The bill now before the House is one
of a scries of measures which it is the duty of this House
to consider and act upon during the present session : and I shall,
in the time allotted to me, take a wider range than the provis-
ions of the bill itself would warrant, and discuss, in connection
with it, the general question of the restoration of the States lately
VOL. I. 7

98 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

in rebellion. I shall try to examine the situation of national
affairs resulting from the war; to determine, if possible, what
ought to be done to bring the republic back, by the surest,
safest, and shortest path, to the full prosperity of liberty and
peace. This is the result earnestly desired by ever}' patriotic
citizen. How to reach it is the great problem we are called
upon to solve. On the main points in the problem I believe
there is far less difference of sentiment in this House than is
generally supposed.

Men differ far more in theory than in practice. It would be
easy to find ten men who perfectly agree in recommending a
given course of action. It would be difficult to find ten who
would give the same reasons for that recommendation. If the
members of this House could lay aside their theories and ab-
stract definitions, and deliberate on questions of practical legis-
lation, many apparent differences would at once disappear. The
words and phrases that we use exert a powerful influence on
the opinions we form and the action which results.

In inquiring into the legal status of the insurgent States, we
are met at the threshold by three distinct theories, each of which
has its advocates in this House : —

1. That these States are now and have never ceased to be in
the Union, with all their rights unimpaired.

2. That they are out of the Union in fact and in law; that
by their acts of secession and rebellion they are reduced to the
condition of Territories ; and that it rests with Congress to deter-
mine whether they shall now or hereafter be admitted into the
Union.

3. The theory announced by the gentleman from New York,^
in his speech of three days ago, that, whatever may have been
the effect of the war upon them, we ought to accept the pres-
ent status of the Southern States, and regard them as having
resumed, under the President's guidance and action, their func-
tions of self-government in the Union.^

Mr. Speaker, I am unable fully to agree with either of these
propositions, and I shall endeavor to point out what seems to
me the error which has led to their adoption. Two terms made
use of in the debate on this subject appear to have caused
much of the diversity of opinion. I allude to the word ** State,"
and the phrase ** in the Union/'

1 Mr. Raymond. ' Congressional Globe, January 29, 1866, p. 491.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 99

The word " State/' as it has been used by gentlemen in this
discussion, has two meanings as perfectly distinct as though
different words had been used to express them. The confusion
arising from applying the same word to two different and dis-
similar objects, has had very much to do with the diverse con-
clusions which gentlemen have reached. They have given us
the definition of a *' State " in the contemplation of public or
international law, and have at once applied that definition, and
the conclusions based upon it, to the States of the American
Union, and the effects of war upon them. Let us examine the
two meanings of the word, and endeavor to keep them distinct
in their application to the questions before us.

Phillimore, the great English publicist, says : —

" For all purposes of international law, a state (S^/xo?, civitas^ Volk)
may be defined to be a people permanently occupying a fixed territory
{certam secUm)^ bound together by common laws, habits, and customs
into one body politic, exercising, through the medium of an organized
government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and
things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace, and of
entering into all international relations with the other communities of the
globe." ^

Substantially the same definition may be found in Grotius,^ in
Burlamaqui,^ and in Vattel.* The primary point of agreement
in all these authorities is, that in contemplation of international
law. a state is absolutely sovereign, acknowledging no superior
on earth. In that sense the United States is a state, a sovereign
state, just as Great Britain, France, and Russia are states.

But what is the meaning of the word State as applied to Ohio
or Alabama? Is either of them a state in the sense of inter-
national law? They lack all the leading requisites of such a
state. They are only the geographical subdivisions of a state ;
and though endowed by the people of the United States with
the rights of local self-government, yet in all their external rela-
tions their sovereignty is completely destroyed, being merged
in the supreme Federal government.^ Ohio cannot make war ;
cannot conclude peace ; cannot make a treaty with any foreign
government ; cannot even make a compact with her sister State ;

' International Law, Part II. Chap. I. Sec. 65.

^ Rights of War and Peace, Book I. Chap. I. Sec. 14.

' Principles of Natural and Politic Law, Vol. II. Part L Chap. IV. Sec. 9.

* Law of Nations, Book I. Chap. I. Sec. i.

* See Halleck*s International I^w, Chap. III. Sec. 16.

lOO RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

cannot regulate commerce; cannot coin money; and has no
flag. These indispensable attributes of sovereignty the State of
Ohio does not possess, nor does any other State of the Union.
We call them States for want of a better name. We call them
States because the original Thirteen had been so designated be-
fore the Constitution was formed ; but that Constitution destroyed
all the sovereignty which those States were ever supposed to
possess in reference to external affairs.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the five great publicists, Grotius,
Puffendorf, Bynkershoek, Burlamaqui, and Vattel, who have been
so often quoted in this debate, and all of whom wrote more
than a quarter of a century, and some nearly two centuries,
before our Constitution was formed, can hardly be quoted as
good authorities in regard to the nature and legal relationships
of the component States of the American Union.

Even my colleague from the Columbus district,^ in his very
able discussion of this question, spoke as though a State of this
Union was the same as a state in the sense of international law,
with certain qualities added. I think he must admit that nearly
all the leading attributes of such a state are wanting to a State
of our Union.

Several gentlemen in this debate have quoted the well-known
doctrine of international law, ** that war annuls all existing com-
pacts and treaties between belligerents '* ; and they have con-
cluded, therefore, that our war has broken the Federal bond
and dissolved the Union. This would be true if the Rebel
States were states in the sense of international law, — if our
government were not a sovereign nation, but only a league
between sovereign states.

I oppose to this conclusion the unanswerable proposition that
this is a nation ; that the Rebel States are not sovereign states,
and therefore their failure to achieve independence was a fail-
ure to break the Federal bond, — to dissolve the Union. The
word "state" which they discuss is no more applicable to Ohio
than to Hamilton County. The States and counties of this
Union are equally unknown to international law.

There is another expression to which I have referred, and
which is used in an equally ambiguous manner. We have
discussed the question here whether these insurgent States are
in the Union. " In the Union. " What do we mean by the

* Mr. Shellabarger.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. lOi #

phrase? In one sense, every inch of soil that we own is " in the
Union." The Territory of Utah is in the Union. So is every
Territory of the West in the Union ; that is, under its authority,
subject to its right of eminent domain. On the other hand,
when some gentlemen say these States are " in the Union/'
they mean to include all their relations, all their rights and
privileges, which is quite another thing. From this ambiguity
in the use of terms have arisen most of the differences of opin-
ion on this subject.

I would not be understood as saying that international law
has nothing to do with the question before us. It has much to
do with it. It furnished us with the rules of civilized nations in
the conduct of war, the rights of belligerents, the treatment of
prisoners, the rules of surrender, cartel, and parole. Guided by
the precepts of international law, we are enabled to understand
the rights and duties of neutral powers, and the legal results of
successful war against domestic enemies and traitors. But when
gentlemen quote the doctrines of international law in reference
to sovereign nations, and apply them directly to the political
status of the States of this Union, they lead us into error.

In view of the peculiar character of our government, I ask:
In what condition has the war left the Rebel States? Did they
accomplish their own destruction ? Did they break the bonds
which bound them to the Union? I answer, they would have
done both these things, if anything short of successful revolu-
tion could do it. It was not, as some gentlemen hold, merely
an insurrection of individuals. It was not, as most civil wars
are, a war among the atoms, so to speak, flaming here and
there, as fire breaks out in a hundred places in a city. It was a
war of organized popular masses, or as the Supreme Court,
borrowing the prophetic words of De Tocqueville, calls it, *' a
territorial civil war," in which we granted them belligerent rights,
and claimed for ourselves both belligerent and sovereign rights.
We could pursue them with war as enemies, or try them by
criminal law as citizens, and hang them as condemned traitors.

I cannot agree with the distinguished gentleman from New
York,* when he holds that we are to deal with the Rebels only
as individuals. They struck at the Union through every instru-
mentality within their reach: through personal service in the
army and individual contributions of money; through volun-

* Mr. Ra3rmond.

102 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

tary associations to raise men and money ; through popular mass
meetings to inflame the passions and develop all the powers of
their people ; through township, county, and city corporations ;
through State conventions, that framed new constitutions in
order the more perfectly to sever the bonds which held them
to the Union ; and, to make a more powerful and effectual
instrument with which to establish their rebel sovereignty,
through State legislatures, by laws levying taxes for the pur-
chase of arms, ammunition, and all the materiel of war, by res-
olutions denouncing the pains and penalties of treason against
all citizens who refused to join their conspiracy; and finally,
through a coofederation of eleven States, consolidated into a
central sovereign government defactOy which became the most
absolute military despotism in modern history, — a despotism
which inundated with its deluge of tyranny all State guaranties,
all municipal privileges, and assumed absolute control of all per-
sons and property within the limits of its territory. There was
not a conceivable calamity which could have befallen us as a
nation that they did not attempt, with all their power and in
every available way, to bring upon us. Individuals fought us
as individuals; States as States fought us; and if a State can
commit treason, each of the sinful eleven committed it again
and again. The Rebels utterly subverted the governments of
their States, they broke every oath by which they had bound
themselves to the Union, they let go their hold upon the
Union, and attempted to destroy it.

What was the tie that bound those States to the Union ? For
example, what made Alabama a State of the Union? Read the
history of that transaction. When she had formed a constitu-
tion for herself in obedience to the law of Congress, when Con-
gress had approved that constitution as republican in form, the
following act was passed by the Congress of the United States,
and was approved by the President, December 14, 18 19: ''Re-
solved by the Senate and House of Represaitatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled. That the State of Ala-
bama shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the
United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an
equal footing with the original Stales in all respects whatso-
ever." Now, Alabama may violate a law of Congress, but she
cannot annul it. She may break it, but she cannot make it
void, except by successful revolution.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 103

By another law of Congress, approved April 21, 1820, it was
declared, "That all the laws of the United States which are
not locally inapplicable shall be extended to the State of Ala-
bama, and shall have the same force and effect within the same
as elsewhere in the United States." By this law Congress
extended our judiciary system over Alabama, dividing the
State into judicial districts ; and since that time, year by year,
Congress has been covering Alabama with Federal legisla-
tion as with a network of steel. Has Alabama broken all
these bonds? She has done all she could to break away from
the Union, but she has not been able to destroy or render in-
valid one law of the republic. Alabama let go of the Union,
but the Union did not let go of Alabama. We have held her
through four years of war, and we hold her still. When she
tried to break the Federal bonds, we called out millions of men
in order that not one jot or tittle should pass from these laws,
but that all should be fulfilled.

Let the stars of heaven illustrate our constellation of States.
When God launched the planets upon their celestial pathway,
he bound them all by the resistless power of attraction to the
central sun, around which they revolved in their appointed
orbits. Each may be swept by storms, may be riven by light-
nings, may be rocked by earthquakes, may be devastated by all
the terrestrial forces and overwhelmed in ruin, but far away in
the everlasting depths the sovereign sun holds the turbulent
planet in its place. This earth may be overwhelmed until the
high hills are covered by the sea ; it may tremble with earth-
quakes miles below the soil, but it must still revolve in its ap-
pointed orbit. So Alabama may overwhelm all her municipal
institutions in ruin, but she cannot annul the omnipotent de-
crees of the sovereign people of the Union. She must be held
forever in her orbit of obedience and duty.

Mr. Stevens. If the gentleman from Ohio will permit me, I will ask
him a question. Some of the angels undertook to dethrone the Al-
mighty, but they could not do it. And they were turned out of heaven
because they were unable to break its laws. Are those devilish angels
in or out of heaven ?

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his interruption.
The angels that kept not their first estate, — what was their
fate? It was the Almighty who opened the shining gates of

104 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

heaven and hurled them down to eternal ruin. They did not
go without his permission and help. And if these States are
out of the Union, it must be because the sovereign people of
the republic hurled them out; because they pleased to let
them go. I am glad the gentleman interrupted me : he hap-
pily illustrates my position.

I will not discuss what we might do with Alabama, but simply
what Alabama herself was able to do, and what she was not able
to do, toward breaking up this Union. Two years ago, when I
had the honor for the first time to address this House, the same
question that is now before us was under discussion. I main-
tained then, as I hold to-day, that the Rebel States are not, in
any legitimate sense of the words, out of the Union. I declared
then, as I declare now, that by their own act of treason and
rebellion they had forfeited all their rights in the Union, but
they had released themselves from none of their obligations.
It rests with the people of the republic to enforce the perform-
ance of these obligations, and, so soon as the national safety
will permit, restore them to their rights.

Now, let us inquire how the surrender of the military power
of the Rebellion affected the legal condition of those States.
When the Rebellion collapsed, and the last armed man of the
Confederacy surrendered to our forces, I affirm that there was
not in one of those States a single government that we did or
could recognize. There was not in one of those States a single
man, from governor down to constable, whom we could recog-
nize as authorized to exercise any official function whatever.
They had formed governments alien and hostile to the Union.
Not only had their officers taken no oaths to support the Con-
stitution of the United States, but they had heaped oath upon
oath to destroy it.

I go further. I hold that there were in those States no con-
stitutions of any binding force and effect, — none that we could
recognize. A constitution, in this case, can mean nothing less
than a constitution of government. A constitution must consti-
tute something, or it is no constitution. When we speak of the
constitution of Alabama, we mean the constitution of the gov-
ernment of Alabama. When the Rebels surrendered, there
remained no constitution in Alabama, because there remained
no government. Those States reverted into our hands by vic-
torious war, with every municipal right and every municipal

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 105

authority utterly and completely swept away. Whose duty was
it to assume the control of them under such circumstances?

In the first instance, it was the duty of the President of the
United States. Congress was not then in session. Military
resistance to the armies of the Union had ceased, and the laws
of war covered every inch of the conquered territory. I ap-
peal to the high authority of international law, as stated by
Halleck : —

"The government established over an enemy's territory during its
military occupation may exercise all the powers given by the laws of
war to the conqueror over the conquered, and is subject to all the re-
strictions which that code imposes. It is of little consequence whether
such government be called a military or a civil government ; its character
is the same, and the source of its authority the same : in either case, it
is a government imposed by the laws of war, and so far as it concerns
the inhabitants of such territory, or the rest of the world, those laws alone
determine the legality or illegality of its acts. But the conquering state
may, of its own will, whether expressed in its constitution or in its laws,
impose restrictions additional to those established by the usage of nations,
conferring upon the inhabitants of the territory so occupied privileges
and rights to which they are not strictly entitied by the laws of war ; and,
if such government of military occupation violate these additional restric-
tions so imposed, it is accountable to the power which established it, but
not to the rest of the world." *

The same author applies the laws of war to the United States
and holds that the President, as commander-in-chief, may estab-
lish a government over conquered territory, but that Congress
may at any time put an end to such a government, and organize
a new one.^

It was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States,
in reference to the Mexican war, that on the conquest of a
country the President may establish a provisional government,
which may ordain laws and institute a judicial system, which
will continue in force after the war, and until modified by the
direct legislation of Congress or by the territorial government
established by its authority.^

From these authorities and from the facts in the case it is
evident, —

I. That, by conquest, the United States obtained complete
control of the Rebel territory.

^ International Law, Chap. XXXII. Sec i. a ibid., Chap. XXXIII. Sec. 16.
• Lftitensdorfer v, Webb, 20 Howard, 176.

1 06 RESTORA TION OF THE SO UTHERN STA TES.

2. That every vestige of municipal authority in those States
was, by secession, rebellion, and the conquest of the rebellion,
utterly destroyed.

3. That the state of war did not terminate with the actual
cessation of hostilities, but that under the laws of war it was the
duty of the President, as commander-in-chief, to establish gov-
ernments over the conquered people of the insurgent States,
which governments, no matter what may be their form, are
really military governments, deriving their sole power from the
President.

4. That the governments thus established are valid while the
state of war continues, and until Congress acts in the case.

5. That it belongs exclusively to the legislative authority of
the government to determine the political status of the insur-
gent States, either by adopting the governments the President
has established, or by permitting the people to form others,
subject to the approval of Congress.

The President might have sent a major-general, or any other
military officer, to govern each one of the Rebel States. But he
chose to consult the people, and allow them to adopt a form of
government resembling civil government, so that they might
the more easily come back to their places in due time. But
it was none the less a military government for that reason.
On any other ground the whole course of the President would
have been an unwarrantable usurpation.

Now, holding first that the President had full authority in the
matter, I ask, how long does his authority last? It is clearly
settled by the authorities which I have quoted that it lasts until
Congress speaks. So long as Congress is silent, the govern-
ments established by the President will remain.

It is now time, Mr. Speaker, that Congress should make its
declaration of policy and principle in reference to these govern-
ments. Let us not quarrel with the past Let us not endan-
ger the future because the President's policy in the past has not
been all we could desire. In one important particular I wish it
had been different. When he appealed to the people of the South
to co-operate with him in establishing his military governments,
I greatly regret that he did not appeal to all the loyal people.
I regret that he did not recognize the rights and consult the
wishes of those loyal millions who were made free and made
citizens also by the events of the war. But let that pass. What

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 107

he did he had a right to do; what remains to be done is for
Congress and the President in their legislative capacity to deter-
mine. Our rights in this direction are as ample as the rights of
conquest. What are they? I read from Woolsey the latest
utterance of public law, made with direct reference to our war:
** When a war ends to the disadvantage of the insurgents, muni-
cipal law may clinch the nail which war has driven, may hang,
after legal process, instead of shooting, and confiscate the whole
instead of plundering a part. But a wise and civilized nation
will exercise only so much of this legal vengeance as the inter-
ests of lasting order imperiously demand." ^

These capacious powers are in our hands. How shall we
use them? I agree with my friend from Connecticut,* that we
need not apply the strictissimum jus to these conquered people.
We should do nothing inconsistent with the spirit and genius
of our institutions. We should do nothing for revenge, but
everything for security; nothing for the past, everything for the
present and the future. Indemnity for the past we can never
obtain. The three hundred thousand graves in which sleep our
fathers and brothers, murdered by rebellion, will keep their
sacred trust till the angel of the resurrection bids the dead come
forth. The tears, the sorrow, the unutterable anguish of broken
hearts, can never be atoned for. We turn from that sad but
glorious past, and demand such securities for the future as can
never be destroyed.

And first, we must recognize in all our action the stupendous
facts of the war. In the very crisis of our fate God brought
us face to face with the alarming truth that we must lose our
own freedom or grant it to the slave. In the extremity of our
distress we called upon the black man to help us save the re-'
public, and amid the very thunder of battle we made a covenant
with him sealed both with his blood and ours, and witnessed by
Jehovah, that when the nation was redeemed he should be free
and share with us the glories and blessings of freedom. In the
solemn words of the great proclamation of emancipation, we not
only declared the slaves forever free, but we pledged the faith
of the nation " to maintain their freedom," — mark the words,
^^ to maintain their freedom'' The Omniscient Witness will ap-
pear in judgment against us if we do not fulfil that covenant.

* Introduction to the Study of International Law, (New York, 1867,) p. 231.

* Mr. Deming.

I08 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

Have we done it? Have we given freedom to the black man?
What is freedom? Is it a mere negation, — the bare privilege
of not being chained, bought and sold, branded and scourged?
If this be all, then freedom is a bitter mockery, a cruel delusion,
and it may well be questioned whether slavery were not better.

But liberty is no negation. It is a substantive, tangible reality.
It is the realization of those imperishable truths of the Declara-
tion, " that all men are created equal," that the sanction of all
just government is " the consent of the governed." Can these
truths be realized until each man has a right to be heard on all
matters relating to himself?

Mr. Speaker, we did more than merely break off the chains
of the slaves. The abolition of slavery added four million citi-
zens to the republic. By the decision of the Supreme Court,
by the decision of the Attorney-General, by the decision of all
the departments of our government, those men made free are,
by the act of freedom, made citizens. As another has said,
they must be " four million disfranchised, disarmed, untaught,
landless, thriftless, non-producing, non-consuming, degraded
men, or four million landholding, industrious, arms-bearing,
and voting population. Choose between the two ! "

If they are to be disfranchised, if they are to have no voice in
determining the conditions under which they are to live and
labor, what hope have they for the future? It will rest with their
late masters, whose treason they aided to thwart, to determine
whether negroes shall be permitted to hold property, to enjoy
the benefits of education, to enforce contracts, to have access to
the courts of justice, — in short, to enjoy any of those rights
which give vitality and value to freedom. In that event, who
can fail to foresee the ruin and misery that await this race,
to whom the vision of freedom has been presented only to
be withdrawn, leaving them without even the aid which the
master's selfish commercial interest in their life and service
formerly afforded them? Will these negroes, remembering the
battle-fields on which nearly two hundred thousand of their
number have so bravely fought, and many thousands have he-
roically died, submit to oppression as tamely and peaceably as
in the days of slavery? Under such conditions there could
be no peace, no security, no prosperity. The spirit of slavery
is still among us ; it must be utterly destroyed before we shall
be safe.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 109

Gibbon has recorded an incident which may serve to illustrate
the influence of slavery in this country. The Christians of
Alexandria, under the lead of Theophilus, their bishop, resolved,
as a means of overthrowing Egyptian idolatry, to demolish the
temple of Serapis and erect on its ruins a church in honor of
the Christian martyrs.

" The colossal statue of Serapis was involved in the ruin of his tem-
ple and religion It was confidendy affirmed that, if any impious

hand should dare to violate the majesty of the god, the heavens and
the earth would instantly return to their original chaos. An intrepid
soldier, animated by zeal, and armed with a weighty battle-axe, as-
cended the ladder, and even the Christian multitude expected with
some anxiety the event of the combat. He aimed a vigorous stroke
against the cheek of Serapis : the cheek fell to the ground ; the thunder
was still silent, and both the heavens and the earth continued to pre-
serve their accustomed order and tranquillity. The victorious soldier
repeated his blows : the huge idol was overthrown, and broken in
pieces ; and the limbs of Serapis were ignominiously dragged through
the streets of Alexandria. His mangled carcass was burnt in the am-
phitheatre amidst the shouts of the populace ; and many persons attrib-
uted their conversion to this discovery of the impotence of their tutelar
deity." ^

So sat slavery in this republic. The temple of the Rebellion
was its sanctuary, and seven million Rebels were its devoted
worshippers. Our loyal millions resolved to overthrow both
the temple and its idol. On the first day of January, 1863,
Abraham Lincoln struck the grim god on the cheek, and the
faithless and unbelieving among us expected to see the fabric
of our institutions dissolve into chaos because their idol had
been smitten. He struck it again; Congress and the States re-
peated the blow, and its unsightly carcass lies rotting in our
streets. The sun shines in the heavens brighter than before.
Let us remove the carcass and leave not a vestige of the mon-
ster. We shall never have done that, until wc declare that all
men shall be consulted in regard to the disposition of their lives,
liberty, and property.

Is this Congress brave enough and virtuous enough to ap-
ply that principle to every citizen, whatever be the color of his
skin? The spirit of our government demands that there shall
be no rigid, horizontal strata running across our political so-

1 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chap. XX VIII.

1 10 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES,

ciety, through which some classes of citizens may never pass
up to the surface ; but it shall be rather like the ocean, where
every drop can seek the surface and glisten in the sun. Until
we are true enough and brave enough to declare that in this
country the humblest, the lowest, the meanest of our citizens
shall not be prevented from passing to the highest place he is
worthy to attain, we shall never realize freedom in all its glorious
meanings. I do not expect we can realize this result imme-
diately ; it may be impossible to realize it very soon ; but let
us keep our eyes fixed in that direction, and march toward that
goal.

There is a second great fact which we must recognize, namely,
that the seven million white men lately in rebellion now stand
waiting to have their case adjudged, — to have it determined
what their status shall be in this government. Shall they be
held under military power? shall they be governed by depu-
ties appointed by the Executive? or shall they again resume
the functions of self-government in the Union? — are some of
the questions growing out of this second fact.

I will proceed to state, in a few words, what seems to me
necessary for the practical settlement of this question. In view
of the events of the war, and the peculiar and novel situation
of the parties and interests concerned ; in view of the powers
conferred upon us by the Constitution and the laws of war;
and in view of the solemn obligations which rest upon us to
maintain the freedom, security, and peace of all the citizens of
the republic, — I inquire, What practical measures can we adopt
best calculated to reach the desired result? It appears to me,
sir, that we should take action in regard to persons and in re-
gard to States.

In reference to persons, we must see to it that, hereafter,, per-
sonal liberty and personal rights are placed in the keeping of
the nation ; that the right to life, liberty, and property shall be
guaranteed to the citizen in reality, as it now is in the words
of the Constitution, and no longer be left to the caprice of
mobs or the contingencies of local legislation. If our Consti-
tution does not now afford all the powers necessary to that end,
we must ask the people to add them. We must give full force
and effect to the provision that '* no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." We
must make it as true in fact as it is in law, that " The citizens

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 1 1 1

of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities
of citizens in the several States." We must make American
citizenship the shield that protects every citizen, on every foot
of our soil. The bill now before the House is one of the means
for reaching this desirable result.

What shall be done with the States lately in rebellion? How
shall we discharge our duty toward them? I shall hail with joy
the day when they shall all be again in their places, loyally obe-
dient and fully represented by loyal men. Are they now enti-
tled to admission? Are they worthy of so great confidence?
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the prima facie evidence is against
them ; the burden of proof rests on each of them to show
whether it is fit again to enter the Federal circle in full com-
munion of privileges. We are sitting as a general court
of the nation. They are to appear at the bar of the repub-
lic, and show cause why they should be brought in. I say
the burden of proof is upon their shoulders. When we knew
them last, they were hurling the lightnings of war against us ;
they were starving our soldiers whom they held as prisoners
of war in their dungeons; they were burning our towns; they
were hating the Union above all things, and were bound by
bloody oaths to destroy it. Thus stood the case when Con-
gress adjourned ten months ago. They must give us proof,
strong as holy writ, that they have washed their hands and
are worthy again to be trusted. No rumors of change; no
Delphic oracle, telling beautiful tales of peace and restoration ;
no gentle declarations like those that we hear from the other
side of this chamber, that the people of the South " have ac-
cepted the results of the war," — will suffice. I know they have
accepted the results of war, — as Buckner accepted them at
Fort Donelson, as Pemberton accepted them at Vicksburg, as
Lee accepted them last April in Virginia.

I hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not expect seven mil-
lion men to change their hearts — to love what they hated
and hate what they loved — on the issue of a battle. Nor are
we set up as a judge over their beliefs, their loves, or their
hatreds. Our duty is to demand that before we admit them
they shall give us sufficient assurance that, whatever they may
think, believe, or wish, their actions in the future shall be such
as loyal men can approve. What have they done to give us
that assurance?

112 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

I hold in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a proclamation issued a few
days since by Benjamin G. Humphreys, late a general in the
Rebel army, now the so-called Governor of Mississippi, which
will illustrate the spirit in which it is desired to administer the
affairs of reorganized Mississippi. He says : —

" Whereas section six of an act of the Legislature of the State of Mis-
sissippi, entitled, * An Act authorizing the issuance of treasury notes as
advance upon cotton, approved December 19, 1861,' provides that
whenever the present blockade of the ports of the Confederate States
shall be removed," etc., etc

** Now, therefore, I, Benjamin G. Humphreys, Governor of the State
of Mississippi, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the constitution
and laws of said State, do hereby proclaim that the blockade of the ports
of the Confederate States has been removed ; and I do require all per-
sons to whom advances have been made to deliver the number of bales
of cotton upon which they have received an advance, in accordance
with their respective receipts on file in the auditor's office, within ninety
days from the date of this proclamation."

Now, what does that mean ? It means that he recognizes as
valid the acts of the legislature of the late Rebel State of Mis-
sissippi and of the Confederate States, and bases his proclama-
tion thereon. This proclamation reached us only a few days
ago. And yet there are members of this House who ask us to
admit the Representatives of Mississippi at once!

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the neighboring State of Virginia a
law has lately been passed which declares certain negroes
vagrants, and provides that as a penalty they may be sold
into slavery. Major-General Terry, on the 24th of January,
issued his military order nullifying that law. Is that a civil
government in which the military authorities abrogate the laws?
Are the men who make such laws worthy of our confidence?
I say again, the case is against them, the burden of proof is on
their shoulders. They must purge themselves before I can
consent to let them in.

How stands the case in Tennessee, the least treasonable of
all? In a letter addressed to yourself, Mr. Speaker, under date
of January 15, 1866, after pleading for the admission of the del-
egation from that State, Governor Brownlow says : —

" Not a man south of Tennessee should be admitted until those States
manifest less of the spirit of rebellion, and elect a more loyal set of men,
and men who can take the Congressional test oath, which but few of
those elected can do.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 113

" If the removal of the Federal troops from Tennessee must necessa-
rily follow upon the admission of our Congressional delegation to their
seats, why, then, and in that case, the loyal men of Tennessee beg to be
without Representatives in Congress. But our members can be admit-
ted, and a military force retained sufficient to govern and control the
rebellious. I tell you, and through you all whom it may concern, that
without a law to disfranchise Rebels and a force to carry out the provis-
ions of that law, this State will pass into the hands of the Rebels, and a
terrible state of affairs* is bound to follow. Union men will be driven
from the State, forced to sacrifice what they have, and seek homes else-
where. And yet Tennessee is in a much better condition than any of
the other revolted States, and affords a stronger loyal population.

" Those who suppose the South is ' reconstructed,' and that her people
cheerfully accept the results of the war, are fearfully deceived. The whole
South is full of the spirit of rebellion, and the people are growing more
bitter and insolent every day. Rebel newspapers are springing up all
over the South, and speaking out in terms of bitterness and reproach
against the government of the United States. These papers lead the
people, and at the same time reflect their sentiments and feelings. Of
the twenty-one papers in Tennessee, fourteen are decidedly Rebel, out-
spoken and undisguised, some of them pretending to acquiesce in the
existing state of affairs. In all the vacancies occurring in our legis-
lature, even with our franchise law in force, Rebels are invariably
returned, and in some instances Rebel officers limping from wounds
received in battle fighting against the United States forces ; and yet
I tell you that Tennessee is in a better condition than any other re-
volted State.

" Others will give you a more favorable account. I cannot in justice
to myself and the truth. I think I know the Southern people. I have
lived fifty-eight years in the South of choice, and two at the North of
necessity."

In view of these facts, we await further proofs.

But, sir, there is a duty laid upon us by the Constitution.
That duty is declared in these words : " The United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of
government." What does that mean? Read the twenty-first
and forty-third numbers of the Federalist, and you will under-
stand what the fathers of the Constitution meant when they put
that clause into our organic law. With wonderful foresight,
amounting almost to prophecy, they appear to have foreseen
just such a contingency as the one that has arisen. Madi-
son said that an insurrection might arise too powerful to be
suppressed by the local authorities, and Congress must have

VOL. 1. 8

\

114 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

authority to put it down, and to see that no usurping govern-
ment shall be erected on the ruins of a State.

What is a republican form of government? When the Union
was formed the free colored people were not a tenth of the pop-
ulation of any State. Now all black men are free citizens ; and
" we are asked," as the lamented Henry Winter Davis has so
clearly stated it, " to recognize as republican such despot-
isms as these: in North Carolina 631,000 citizens will ostra-
cize 331,000 citizens ; in Virginia, 719,000 citizens will ostracize
533,000 citizens; in Alabama, 596,000 citizens will ostracize
437,000 citizens; in Louisiana, 357,000 citizens will ostracize
350,000 citizens; in Mississippi, 353,000 citizens will ostracize
436,000 citizens ; in South Carolina 291,000 citizens will ostra-
cize 411,000 citizens."

We are asked to guarantee all these as republican govern-
ments ! Gentlemen, upon the other side of the House ask us to
let such shameless despotisms as these be represented here as
republican States. I venture to assert that a more monstrous
proposition was never before made to an American Congress.

I am therefore in favor of the amendment to the Constitution
that passed the House yesterday, to reform the basis of repre-
sentation.^ I could have wished that it had been more thorough
and searching in its terms; I took it as the best we could get;
but I say here, before this House, that I will never, so long as I
have any voice in political affairs, rest satisfied until the way is
opened by which these colored citizens, so soon as they are
worthy, shall be lifted to the full rights of citizenship. I will
not be factious in my action here. If I cannot to-day get all
I desire, I will try again to-morrow, securing all that can be
obtained to-day. But so long as I have any voice or vote here,
it shall aid in giving the suffrage to every citizen qualified, by
intelligence, to exercise it.

Mr. Speaker, I know of nothing more dangerous to a republic
than to put into its very midst four million people stripped of
the rights of citizenship, robbed of the right of representa-
tion, but bound to pay taxes to the government. If they can
endure it, we cannot. The murderer is to be pitied more than
the murdered man; the robber more than the robbed; and
we who defraud four million citizens of their rights are injuring

1 Namely, an amendment adopted by the House, January 31, 1866, but rejected
by the Senate.

RESTORA TtON OF THE SO UTHERN STA TES. 1 1 S

ourselves vastly more than we are injuring those whom we de-
fraud. I say that the inequality of rights before the law, which
is now a part of our system, is more dangerous to us than to
the black man whom it disfranchises. It is like a foreign sub-
stance in the body, a thorn in the flesh; it will wound and
disease the body politic.

I remember that this question of suffrage caused one of the
greatest civil wars in the history of Rome. Ninety years before
Christ, when Rome was near the climax of her glory, just before
the dawn of the Augustan age, twelve peoples of Italy, to whom
the franchise was denied, rose in rebellion against Rome ; and
after three years and ten months of bloody war they compelled
Rome to make her first capitulation for three hundred years.
For three hundred years the Roman eagle had been carried
triumphantly over every battle-field ; but when iron Rome, with
all her pride and glory, met men who were fighting for the
right of suffrage, she was compelled to succumb, and give the
ballot to the twelve peoples to save herself from dissolution.
Let us learn wisdom from that lesson, and extend the suffrage
to people who may one day bring us more disaster than foreign
or domestic war has yet done.

I must refer for a moment to the proposition of my friend
from Connecticut,^ who asks us to imbed in the imperishable
bulwarks of the Constitution an amendment that will forbid
secession in the future. I want no such change of the Consti-
tution. The Rebels never had, by the Constitution, the right
to secede. If we have not settled that question by war, it can
never be settled by a court. The court of war is higher than
any other tribunal. As the Governor of Ohio has so well said,
" These things have been decided in the dread court of last re-
sort for peoples and nations. By as much as the shock of armed
hosts is more grand than the intellectual tilt of lawyers, as the
God of battles is a more awful judge than any earthly court, by
so much does the dignity of this contest and the finality of this
decision exceed that of any human tribunal." I care not what
provision might be in the Constitution ; if any States of this
Union desire to rebel and break up the Union, and are able to
do it, they will do it in spite of the Constitution. All I want,
therefore, is so to amend our Constitution and administer our
laws as to secure liberty and loyalty among the citizens of the
Rebel States.

* Mr. Deming.

Ii6 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

I am not among those who believe that all men in the South
are enemies in the eye of the law. Their property was " enemy's
property " when it was transported and used contrary to the
laws of the government ; but all are not therefore enemies of the
government. Judge Sprague, in the Amy Warwick case,^ dis-
tinctly declared that they were only enemies in a technical sense ;
and in reference to property, Justice Nelson, in 1862, declared
distinctly that men who resided within the limits of the rebel-
lious States were not therefore to be considered as enemies.
He distinctly declared that the question of their property be-
ing enemy's property depended upon the use made of it. If
the attempt was made to take and transport the property in
opposition to law, then it fell under the technical category of
enemy's property, and not otherwise. I take it for granted that
the farm of Andrew Johnson, in Tennessee, was never enemy's
property. If he had undertaken to violate the revenue laws in
the use of his property, it would have become such.

I remember that the long range of mountains stretching from
Western Virginia, through Tennessee and Georgia, to the sand-
hills of Mississippi, stood like a promontory in the fiery ruin
with which the Rebellion had involved the republic. I re-
member that East Tennessee, with its loyal thousands, stood
like a rock in the sea of treason. I remember that thirty-five
thousand brave men from Tennessee stood beside us to assist
in putting down the Rebellion. They are not enemies of the
country, and never were ; and it is cruelly wicked, by any fic-
tion of the law, to call them so.. To those patriotic men of
Tennessee let me say, I want you to show that there is behind
you a loyal State government, based on the will of loyal peo-
ple, and that districts of loyal constituents have sent you here.
When you do that, you shall have my vote in favor of your
admission. But the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Mr. Speaker, let us learn a lesson from the dealings of God
with the Jewish nation. When his chosen people, led by the
pillar of cloud and fire, had crossed the Red Sea and traversed
the gloomy wilderness with its thundering Sipai, its bloody bat-
tles, disastrous defeats, and glorious victories, — when near the
end of their perilous pilgrimage they listened to the last words
of blessing and warning from their great leader, before he was
buried with immortal honors by the angel of the Lord, — when
at last the victorious host, sadly joyful, stood on the banks

^ 2 Sprague 's Decisions, 123.

RESTORA TION OF THE SO UTHERN STA TES. 1 1 7

of the Jordan, their enemies drowned in the sea or slain in the
wilderness, — they paused, and, having reviewed the history of
God's dealings with them, made solemn preparation to pass
over and possess the land of promise. By the command of
God, given through Moses and enforced by his great successor,
the ark of the covenant, containing the tables of the Law and
the sacred memorials of their pilgrimage, was borne by chosen
men two thousand cubits in advance of the people. On the
farther shore stood Ebal and Gerizim, the mounts of cursing
and blessing, from which, in the hearing of all the people, were
pronounced the curses of God against injustice and disobe-
dience, and his blessing upon justice and obedience. On the
shore, between the mountains and in the midst of the people, a
monument was erected, and on it was written the words of the
law, " to be a memorial unto the children of Israel for ever and
ever." Let us learn wisdom from this illustrious example. We
have passed the Red Sea of slaughter; our garments are yet
wet with its crimson spray. We have crossed the fearful wil-
derness of war, and have left our three hundred thousand heroes
to sleep beside the dead enemies of the republic. We have
heard the voice of God amid the thunders of battle command-
ing us to wash our hands of iniquity, — to '* proclaim liberty
throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." When
we spurned his counsels, we were defeated, and the gulfs of
ruin yawned before us. When we obeyed his voice, he gave
us victory. And now, at last, we have reached the confines of
the wilderness. Before us is the land of promise, the land of
hope, the land of peace, filled with possibilities of greatness
and glory too vast for the grasp of the imagination. Arc we
worthy to enter it? On what condition may it be ours to enjoy
and transmit to our children's children? Let us pause and
make deliberate and solemn preparation. Let us, as repre-
sentatives of the people, whose servants we are, bear in ad-
vance the sacred ark of republican liberty, with its tables of the
law inscribed with the " irreversible guaranties " of liberty. Let
us here build a monument on which shall be written, not only
the curses of the law against treason, disloyalty, and oppres-
sion, but also an everlasting covenant of peace and blessing
with loyalty, liberty, and obedience; and all the people will
say, Amen !

AMERICAN SHIPPING.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

February i, 1866, and May 25, 187a

Pending a bill providing that no ship or vessel which had been re-
corded or registered as an American vessel pursuant to law, and which
had afterward been licensed or otherwise authorized to sail under a for-
eign flag or the protection of a foreign government during the existence
of the rebellion, should be deemed or registered as an American vessel,
or should have the rights and privileges of American vessels, except under
an act of Congress authorizing such registry, Mr. Garfield made the fol-
lowing remarks, February i, 1866.

MR. SPEAKER, — Without having examined carefully
the navigation laws of this country, I have looked into
tHem enough to be satisfied of one or two things, which I de-
sire to suggest to this House before the vote is taken on the
passage of this bill.

In the first place, we have navigation laws borrowed from
those monuments of tyranny, the Navigation Laws of Great
Britain, which, more than any other laws ever enacted by Par-
liament, were the cause of the American Revolution. Among
other features of these laws is one that forbids the buying of a
vessel from a foreign country and sailing it under our flag, if
it is a foreign bottom, no matter how cheaply we may pur-
chase it, or under what circumstances we may obtain it. Un-
less we ourselves lay out upon it more money than the origi-
nal cost of building the bottom abroad, we cannot sail it under
the American flag. That, of course, shuts out all foreign-built
vessels, however valuable they may be at any time. But I am
not discussing that subject now, nor will I enter into a con-
sideration of it at this time.

The question now under consideration is this. During this
great war, when we were unable to protect our shipping on the

I

[

AMERICAN SHIPPING. 119

high seas, to protect our ships sailing under our own flag,
there were many patriotic American citizens who simply regis-
tered their vessels for sailing under a foreign flag, that they
might carry on their commerce without having their property
destroyed by the pirates infesting the seas: Now, when eight
hundred thousand tons of American shipping has thus been
transferred by registry or by sale to foreign flags, it is pro-
posed that none of it shall ever be registered again with the
rights and privileges of American vessels, except by express
act of Congress. One fifth of our tonnage has left us, and by
this bill will be wholly excluded from our merchant marine.

Now, one gentleman ^ has spoken of these vessels as deserters
in the same way precisely that we speak of deserters from our
army. I care far more about our tonnage on the sea than I
care about the individual shipper who took a register under a
foreign flag. It is not now a question with me what the status
of the shipper himself may be. I do not propose to injure all
the interests of our merchant marine for the purpose of spiting
a few of our speculators. It seems to me it would show a great
want of proper policy on our part to do so.

Mr. Lynch. What I did say was this : that it would be impolitic for
any government to encourage the desertion of its citizens with their
property during a period of war, those citizens identifying their interests
for the time being with the interests of the enemy. My remarks had no
reference whatever to " skippers." I did say, and I now repeat, that
every man who, during the war, put his vessel under a foreign flag iden-
tified his interests with those of the foreigners who were assisting in the
destruction of our commerce ; and if we encourage such desertion, and
pay a premium upon it, some of our citizens will always desert us with
their property in time of war. I hold that we should not give encourage-
ment to conduct of this sort.

Mr. Speaker, if in time of war I own a piece of property
which I cannot keep safe in this country, and the keeping of
which will ruin me pecuniarily, I ask whether the Congress of
my country should prohibit me from selling that property to
foreigners, or, if I have sold it, prohibit me from repurchasing
it and using it here where I first acquired that property? If I
sell to a Canadian, or any other foreigner, an engine which I
own, and which I have used perhaps to operate a saw-mill on
the Ohio, is it right that I should be prohibited from repurchas-

1 Mr. Lynch, of Maine.

120 AMERICAN SHIPPING.

ing that engine by and by, and using it in this country? Now,
sir, this bill proposes that, whenever an American vessel shall
have been sold to a foreigner, or even registered to sail under
a foreign flag, such vessel shall never be permitted to re-enter
our service without special authority from Congress.

Mr. Eliot. This bill does not refer to sales of vessels at all, neither
sham sales nor bona fide sales. It only covers a class of cases where
American ship-owners have obtained for their vessels the protection of
foreign powers, have procured permits or licenses from foreign govem-
ments, thus waiving the benefit of their own flag for the sake of securing
the protection of foreign powers. The bill provides that in such cases
the vessel shall no longer be deemed an American vessel, unless the
party interested can satisfy Congress that the vessel ought to be granted
an American register.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement is all the worse for
his cause. He says that the bill does not apply to a vessel that
was sold, alienated to a foreigner, but pierely to vessels which
were registered to sail under a foreign flag that could protect
them. What the owners in the latter cases did is not nearly so
bad as the act of those who alienated their vessels to foreigners.
I say that the owner of a vessel, if our flag cannot protect it,
ought to be entitled to register his vessel under a flag that can
protect it; and when we are again able to protect it, I am in
favor, if not for his sake, at least for the sake of the merchant
service, of allowing his vessel to come back and sail under our
flag, and thus increase our tonnage.

I maintain that this question is 'a matter of tonnage, and not
of men. I am in favor of the amendment suggested by my
colleague,^ that all these cases be referred to the Secretary of
the Treasury, who may look into the question of the loyalty of
the owner; and that the Secretary of the Treasury shall be au-
thorized to register his vessel, if he be a loyal man. I would be
the last man to grant any favor to a rebel ; but I would grant
favors to the American merchant service. I would increase our
tonnage.

Some gentlemen here propose to wait for the increase of our
tonnage until the shipbuilders of Maine and New Hampshire,
and other States on the Atlantic seaboard, can build us vessels.
The gentleman from Maine ^ has said that in Nova Scotia vessels
can be built at a cost of forty dollars to the ton, while in Maine

1 Mr. Spaulding. a Mr. Pike.

i

AMERICAN SHIPPING, 1 2 1

their construction costs one hundred dollars to the ton. There-
fore, it is urged, we cannot compete with foreign shipbuilders.
Now I do not propose to give the men in the Atlantic cities
sixty dollars on the hundred, when we can get increased service
for the country by simply re-registering the vessels which we
could not protect.

Mr. Pike. Will the gentleman tell me what difference it makes to the
shipper in New York, whether he imports his goods in British or Ameri-
can bottoms ? What difference is there in insurance ? And will he tell
me further, whether it is not a fact that of the goods imported more than
seventy-five per cent do not come in British bottoms ?

I will answer the gentleman with one general fact, namely,
that, for some reason deemed good by them, the owners of those
vessels which have been registered under foreign flags desire to
bring their ships back. That is proved. If it is for the advantage
of the ships to come back for business, they will come back.

Mr. Pike. The gentleman speaks, not of shipbuilders, but of mer-
chants. He says that merchants would forthwith have to pay enhanced
prices for vessels. I ask him whether he cannot employ British ships
on precisely the same terms to import his goods as American ships ?
Let him answer that question.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking now of shipping, and not of the
interests of merchants of New York. We arc talking of our
general power to export and import goods ; and now, when it is
proved that a part of our tonnage has gone during the war, we
are asked to keep it out in order that the shipbuilders of this
country may have the job of filling the vacuum. I propose we
shall fill that vacuum by the most expeditious method in our
power.

I call this House to witness that at the last session I declared,
as I now declare, myself forever opposed to all monopolies,
whether of railroads, shipbuilders, or of any other associations,
which propose to cripple the commerce of the republic cither
among the States or upon the high seas. I look on this as one
of those monopolies, and I am surprised that my able and dis-
tinguished friend from the Galena district, Illinois,^ should vote
in any other way than against this measure, he being a strong
anti-monopoly man, as he has so often avowed himself on this
floor. I do not care what political company it puts me in; I

^ Mr. Washburn.

122 AMERICAN SHIPPING.

do not care who associates with me; I shall associate with
every man who puts his foot down on these monopolies, one
of which I declare this to be.

[After some brief speeches from several gentlemen, Mr. Garfield con-
tinued.]

Mr. Speaker, I have only two things to say before I call for
the previous question and close the debate.

The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts^ said this
was a proposition to exclude men who had deserted our flag.
I declare the gentleman has not met the point. It is not a law
against men; it is a law against tonnage, and not men. He
may make all the legislation he pleases against letting disloyal
men come back, and I will vote with him ; but let him make
that discrimination.

He says we propose to change the policy of the government.
My answer is in one word. It is the gentleman himself who
is proposing to change the policy of the government, as the
Secretary of the Treasury is every day allowing these vessels
to be re-rcgistered. They propose by this change of the law to
keep these vessels out of our merchant marine. We are simply
opposing a change in the law in favor of a monopoly.

The gentleman from Maine ^ says, if we make free trade on
this subject, let us make free trade on all. He will not deter
me from my purpose by shaking that red rag before me. I do
not care what name he calls it ; I know it is not free trade ; I
know only that what he proposes is to discriminate against all
other property and in favor of the property of the shipbuilders.
If he will apply the same law to property in ships that he applies
to all kinds of property in the great West, then he will find that
he cannot maintain his law. All I ask is that the same law
shall be applied to both. I call the previous question.

On the 25th of May, 1870, pending a bill to revive the navigation
and the commercial interests of the United States, by means of rebates
of duties on shipbuilding materials imported, and by means of bounties
on tonnage, Mr. Garfield said : —

Mr. Speaker, — I desire in the ten minutes awarded me to
present three points for the consideration of the House.

1 Mr. Banks. a Mr. Blaine

i

AMERICAN SHIPPING. 123

I have studied this subject as presented in the report of the
committee and elsewhere, and it seems to me that the trouble
about our tonnage at the present time is not that there is a lack
of tonnage on the ocean, but that American people do not con-
trol a requisite share of that tonnage. It seems to me we shall
make a mistake if we proceed on the supposition that there is
a lack of tonnage, and that greater means of transportation on
the high seas are needed. In a report made in 1 861 by an
American consul, which appears to be a very comprehensive
one, it was shown that the tonnage of the world was about
seventeen million tons, of which the United States owned five
and a half millions ; Great Britain five and three quarters mil-
lions ; and all other countries about five and three quarters mil-
lions. Or we might say that the tonnage on the high seas was
about equally divided into three equal shares, of which one was
held by the United States, one by Great Britain, and one by all
other countries.

It appears that now, in consequence of the war and various
other causes, there has been a change in the relative ownership
of the tonnage, but not in the total amount. There are no
complaints from shippers that they cannot get merchandise
shipped across the sea. They complain only that the Ameri-
can flag does not cover a sufficient amount of the tonnage.
The question, then, which we have to determine, is this : Will
we remedy the evil by increasing the total volume of tonnage,
or shall we seek some method of placing a greater share of it
under the American flag?

From the latest reports of our Treasury Department, it ap-
pears that the total tonnage of Great Britain is now 5,500,000
tons, while the tonnage of the United States is 4,144,640 tons.
But the tonnage of the United States includes 1,523,931 tons in
the coasting trade, 661,366 on our lakes, and 392,901 on our
rivers, leaving our ocean tonnage only 1,566,421 tons, — vastly
less than it was before the war.

The trouble is not that we have not tonnage at home ; it is
that we lack tonnage on the seas. At the present moment
there are one hundred and seventeen steamers that plough the
ocean between America and Europe, and not one of them flies
the American flag. Nevertheless, a respectable share of the
capital in those ships is owned by Americans. The German
line is very largely owned by American citizens; the Guion

124 AMERICAN SHIPPING.

line is, I think, also mainly owned by American citizens ; but
these citizens are compelled to put their capital into ships that
sail under foreign flags. These facts present the first point I
desired to make, in order that we may see where the difficulty
lies, and keep this fact in view in adopting remedies.

I now desire to call the attention of the House to a second
point, which is this. I object to the bill as reported by the
committee because it docs not give aid to that part of our com-
merce that needs relief, to our foreign tonnage, and does give
aid where relief is not needed. Now, I can have no better
pfoof of this than the sensitiveness of the gentleman from
Maine ^ in regard to any amendment which shall limit the
operation of the bill to vessels engaged in foreign trade. When
the bill was open to amendment yesterday, and when the gen-
tleman from lowa^ proposed an amendment of six words to
limit all these drawbacks, bounties, subsidies, tonnage dues, and
various aids provided in the bill to ships of two thousand tons
and upward, the gentleman in charge of the bill would not
permit the amendment to be offered. This morning the gen-
tleman has offered a substitute, which I have read at the clerk's
desk, and I find it only limits the operation of the bill to ships
of one thousand tons and upward, which would include a large
share of the shipping even on our Northern lakes, and which,
in all its more important features, will apply to the coasting
trade. I desire, therefore, to say that, whatever may be the
purpose of those who support this bill, it is perfectly clear
that it will give great additional advantages to the builders of
ships for the coasting trade, — a class of men who are to-day
engaged in a business of which they have the absolute monop-
oly as against all foreigners. There is not a keel owned or
built by foreigners that can, under our laws, engage in our lake
and coasting trade. All the vessels engaged in it are built and
wholly owned by Americans. There appears to be no other
falling off in our coasting trade than that which the natural
competition of railroads has produced. Now, notwithstanding
this monopoly, a bill is proposed that cannot take less than
ten million dollars a year out of the treasury, to increase the
profits of those who are engaged m building vessels for the
coasting trade.

But I have further asserted that this bill will not give the

1 Mr. Lynch. 2 ^fr. Allison.

AMERICAN SHIPPING. 125

needed relief to our foreign commerce. And why? It will
not enable our shipbuilders to compete with the shipbuilders
of the Clyde. From the study that I have been able to give to
the subject, I affirm that all the subsidies, bounties, and draw-
backs provided in this bill will not enable us to compete with
the cheap iron vessels built on that river. Germany and all the
maritime countries of Europe, even those that admit shipbuilding
materials free of duty, have utterly failed to compete with the
Clyde shipbuilders. All the maritime countries of Europe are
to-day going to them to buy their vessels for their own trade.
The price of labor and materials there is so much less than here
that it will require nearly one hundred per cent of government
aid to enable us to compete with them. This is the testimony
of experts and the experience of other nations. I affirm, there-
fore, that for the purposes of our foreign trade this bill is wholly
inadequate, and for the purposes of the coasting trade it is
wholly unnecessary. On this statement, to which I challenge the
attention of the House, I rest my opposition to this bill. But I
will add another consideration.

There is one feature of this bill, the subsidy provision, which
is odious to the American people. It is a feature, I think,
which no man in this House, certainly no representative of an
inland district, can support and sustain himself before his con-
stituents. And now we are called upon, at the last moment, to
vote, as we shall be compelled to do, I presume, under the pre-
vious question, upon a new bill, which has not yet been read,
but which has been reported by the committee as a substitute
for the original bill and all the amendments. Under these cir-
cumstances, I think it wiser to lay the bill and the pending
amendments on the table, or to recommit and postpone it until
in calmer times and with fuller deliberation we can devise some
real and effective remedy for our decayed commerce. I am
not at liberty to make a motion on this subject, and will now
return the floor to the gentleman from Illinois,^ by whose
courtesy I have been occupying it.

1 Mr. Farnsworth.

\

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

June 8, 1866.

At its annual meeting held in Washington, D. C, in February, 1866,
the National Association of School Superintendents memorialized Con-
gress to establish a National Bureau of Education. A bill was also pre-
pared by the direction of the Association, embodying its vievi's. By the
request of the Association, Mr. Garfield presented the memorial and the
bill in the House of Representatives. The bill was read twice, referred to
a select committee of seven, and ordered printed. April 3 following, he
reported from the committee d substitute for the original bill, — changed
only in the name. June % he closed the debate upon the bill in the
following speech. The vote was adverse. Immediately a motion to
reconsider was entered. June 1 9, the motion to reconsider was carried,
and the bill passed. At the next session the bill passed the Senate, and
the President's approval, March 2, 1867, made it law.

This measure was peculiarly Mr. Garfield's work. He introduced the
subject to the House, was the chairman of the special committee, re-
ported the second bill, and was its principal champion on the floor.
Both the Bureau and his speech attracted the attention of educators and
the friends of education beyond the sea. An example is furnished by

the following letter : —

" RocHDvVLE, January 4, 186S.

" Dear Sir, — I ^vrite to thank you for sending me a copy of General
Garfield's speech on education. I have read it with much interest

" The department now to be constituted at Washington will doubt-
less prepare statistics which will inform the world of what is doing in the
United States on the Education question ; and the volume it will publish
will have a great effect in this country, and, indeed, in all civilized
countries. You will have observed the increased interest in education
shown in England since the extension of the suffrage. I hope some
great and good measure may be passed at an early period. I am very

truly yours.

"John Bright.

"George J. Abbott, Esq., United States Consul, Sheffield."

THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION. 1 27

The bill as drawn by Mr. Garfield, and as it became a law, is as
follows : —

" An Act to establish a Department of Education.

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled^ That there shall be established,
at the city of Washington, a Department of Education, for the purpose
of collecting such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and pro-
gress of education in the several States and Territories, and of diffusing
such information respecting the organization and management of schools
and school systems, and methods of teaching, as shall aid the people
of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient
, school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education throughout
the country.

" Sec. 2. And be it further enacted y That there shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Com-
missioner of Education, who shall be intrusted with the management of
the Department herein established, and who shall receive a salary of four
thousand dollars per annum, and who shall have authority to appoint one
chief clerk of his Department, who shall receive a salary of two thousand
dollars per annum, one clerk who shall receive a salary of eighteen
hundred dollars per annum, and one clerk who shall receive a salary of
sixteen hundred dollars per annum, which said clerks shall be subject to
the appointing and removing power of the Commissioner of Education.

" Sec. 3. And be it further enacted^ That it shall be the duty of the
Commissioner of Education to present annually to Congress a report
embod}ing the results of his investigations and labors, together with a
statement of such facts and recommendations as will, in his judgment,
subserve the purpose for which this Department is established. In the
first report made by the Commissioner of TLducation under this act,
there shall be presented a statement of the several grants of land made by
Congress to promote education, and the manner in which these several
trusts have been managed, the amount of funds arising therefrom, and
the annual proceeds of the same, as far as the same can be determined.

" Sec. 4. And be it further enacted. That the Commissioner of Public
Buildings is hereby authorized and directed to furnish proper offices for
the use of the Department herein established.'*

MR. SPEAKER, — I did intend to make a somewhat elabo-
rate statement of the reasons why the select committee
recommend the passage of this bill ; but I know the anxiety
that many gentlemen feel to have the debate concluded, to

1 28 THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION.

allow the private bills now on the calendar, and set for to-
day, to be disposed of, and to complete as soon as possible
the work oif this session. I will therefore abandon my original
purpose, and restrict myself to a brief statement of a few
leading points in the argument, and leave the decision with
the House. I hope this waiving of a full discussion of the bill
will not be construed into a confession that it is inferior in
importance to any measure before the House; for I know of
none that has a nobler object, or that more vitally affects the
future -of this nation.

I first ask the House to consider the magnitude of the
interests involved in the bill. The very attempt •to discover '
the amount of pecuniary and personal interest we have in our
schools shows the necessity of such a law as is here proposed.
I have searched in vain for any complete or reliable statistics
showing the educational condition of the whole country. The
estimates that I have made are gathered from various sources^
and can be only approximately correct. I am satisfied, how-
ever, that they are far below the truth.

Even from the incomplete and imperfect educational sta-
tistics of the Census Bureau, it appears that in i860 there
were in the United States 115,224 common schools, 500,000
school officers, 150,241 teachers, and 5,477,037 scholars; thus
showing that more than 6,000,000 of the people of the United
States are directly engaged in the work of education. Not
only has this large proportion of our population been thus
engaged, but the Congress of the United States has given
53,000,000 acres of public lands to fourteen States and Ter-
ritories of the Union for the support of schools. In the old
ordinance of 1785, it was provided that one section of every
township — one thirty-sixth of all the public lands of the
United States — should be set apart, and held forever sacred
to the support of the schools of the country. In the ordinance
of 1787, it was declared that, "religion, morality, and knowl-
edge being necessary to good government and the happiness
of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever
be encouraged." It is estimated that at least $50,000,000
has been given in the United States by private individuals
for the support of schools. We have thus an interest, even
pecuniarily considered, hardly second to any other. We have
school statistics tolerably complete from only seventeen States

THE NA T TONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION. 1 29

of the Union. Our Congressional library contains no edu-
cational reports whatever from the remaining nineteen. In
those seventeen States, there are 90,835 schools, 129,000 teach-
ers, 5,107,285 pupils; and $34,000,000 is annually appropri-
ated by the legislatures for the support and maintenance of
common schools. Notwithstanding the great expenditures en-
tailed upon them during four years of war, they raised by
taxation $34,000,000 annually for the support of public edu-
cation. In several States of the Union, more than fifty per
cent of all the tax imposed for State purposes is for the sup-
port of the public schools. And yet gentlemen are impatient
because we wish to occupy a short time in considering this
bill.

I will not trouble the House by repeating such commonplaces,
so familiar to every gentleman here, as that our system of govern-
ment is based upon the intelligence of the people. But I wish
to suggest that there never has been a time when all our educa-
tional forces should be in such perfect activity as at the present
day. Ignorance — stolid ignorance — is not our most dangerous
enemy. There is very little of that kind of ignorance among the
white population of this country. In the Old World, among
the despotic governments of Europe, the great disfranchised
class — the pariahs of political and social life — are indeed
ignorant, mere inert masses, moved and controlled by the intel-
ligent and cultivated aristocracy. Any unrepresented and hope-
lessly disfranchised class in a government will inevitably be
struck with intellectual paralysis. Our late slaves afford a sad
illustration. But among the represented and voting classes of
this country, where all are equal before the law, and every man
is a political power for good or evil, there is but little of the
inertia of ignorance. The alternatives are not education or no
education ; but shall the power of the citizen be directed aright
towards industry, liberty, and patriotism? or, under the baneful
influence of false theories and evil influences, shall it lead him
continually downward, and work out anarchy and ruin, both to
him and the government? If he is not educated in the school
of virtue and integrity, he will be educated in the school of vice
and iniquity. We are, therefore, afloat on the sweeping current:
we must make head against it, or we shall go down with it to
the saddest of destinies. According to the census of i860,
there were 1,218,311 inhabitants of the United States over

VOL. L 9

1 30 THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION.

twenty-one years of age who could not read or write; and
871,418 of these were American-born citizens. One third of a
million of people are being annually thrown upon our shores
from the Old World, a large per cent of whom are uneducated ;
and the gloomy total has been swelled by the four million slaves
admitted to citizenship by the events of the war.

Such, sir, is the immense force which we must now confront
by the genius of our institutions and the light of our civiliza-
tion. How shall it be done? An American citizen can give
but one answer. We must pour upon them all the light of our
public schools. We must make them intelligent, industrious,
patriotic citizens, or they will drag us and our children down to
their level. Does not this question rise to the full height of
national importance, and demand the best efforts of statesman-
ship to adjust it?

Horace Mann has well said, —

" Legislators and rulers are responsible. In our country and in our
times no man is worthy the honored name of a statesman who does not
include the highest practicable education of the people in all his plans
of administration. He may have eloquence, he may have a knowledge
of all history, diplomacy, jurispmdence, and by these he may claim, in
other countries, the elevated rank of a statesman ; but unless he speaks,
plans, labors, at all times and in all places, for the culture and edification
of the whole people, he is not, he cannot be, an American statesman." ^

Gentlemen who have discussed the bill this morning tell us
that it will result in great expense to the government. Whether
an enterprise is expensive or not is altogether a relative ques-
tion, to be determined by the importance of the object in view.

Now, what have we done as a nation in the way of expenses?
In 1832 we organized a Coast Survey Bureau, and have ex-
pended millions upon it. Its officers have triangulated thou-
sands of miles of our coasts, have made soundings of all our
bays and harbors, and carefully mapped the shoals, breakers,
and coast-lines from our northern boundary on the Atlantic to
the extreme northern boundary on the Pacific coast. They
have established eight hundred tidal stations to observe the fluc-
tuations of the tides. We have expended vast sums in order
perfectly to know the topography of our coasts, lakes, and rivers,
that we might make navigation more safe. Is it of no conse-
quence that we explore the boundaries of that wonderful intel-

> Life and Works, Vol. II. p. 1S8 (Cambridge, 1867).

THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION. \ 3 1

lectual empire which encloses within its domain the fate of
succeeding generations and of this republic? The children of
to-day will be the architects of our country's destiny in 1900.

We have established an Astronomical Observatory, where
the movements of the stars are watched, latitude and longitude
calculated, and chronometers regulated for the benefit of navi-
gation. For this observatory we pay one third of a million per
annum. Is it of no consequence that you observe the move-
ments of those stars which shall, in the time to come, be guid-
ing 3tars in our national firmament?

We have established a Light-House Board that is employing
all the aids of science to discover the best modes of regulating
the beacons upon our shores : it is placing buoys as way-marks
to guide ships safely into our harbors. Will you not create a
light-house board to set up beacons for the coming genera-
tion, not as lights to the eye, but to the mind and heart, that
shall guide them safely in the perilous voyage of life, and enable
them to transmit the blessings of liberty to those who shall
come after them ?

We have set on foot a score of expeditions to explore the
mountains and valleys, the lakes and rivers, of this and other
countries. We have expended money without stint to explore
the Amazon and the Jordan, Chili and Japan, the gold shores
of Colorado and the copper cliffs of Lake Superior, to gather
and publish the great facts of science, and to exhibit the
material resources of physical nature. Will you refuse the
pitiful sum of $13,000 to collect and record the intellectual
resources of this country, the elements that lie behind all
material wealth, and make it either a curse or a blessing?

We have paid three quarters of a million dollars for the sur-
vey of the route for the Pacific Railroad, and have published
the results, at a great cost, in thirteen quarto volumes, with
accompanying maps and charts. The money for these pur-
poses was freely expended. And now, when it is proposed to
appropriate $13,000 to aid in increasing the intelligence of
those who will use that great continental highway when it is
completed, we are reminded of our debts, and warned against
increasing our expenditures. It is difficult to treat such an
objection with the respect that is always due in this hall of
legislation.

We have established a Patent- Office, where are annually

1 3 2 THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION.

accumulated thousands of models of new machines invented
by our people. Will you make no expenditure for the benefit
of the intelligence that shall stand behind those machines, and
be their controller? Will you bestow all your favors upon the
engine and ignore the engineer? I will not insult the intelli-
gence of this House by waiting to prove that money paid for
education is the most economical of all expenditures ; that it is
cheaper to prevent crime than to build jails ; that schoolhouses
are less expensive than rebellions. A tenth of our national
debt expended in public education fifty years ago would . have
saved us the blood and treasure of the late war. A far less sum
may save our children from a still greater calamity.

We expend hundreds of thousands annually to promote the
agricultural interests of the country, — to introduce the best
methods in all that pertains to husbandry. Is it not of more
consequence to do something for the farmer of the future than
for the farm of to-day? As man is more precious than soil, as
the immortal spirit is nobler than the clod it animates, so is the
object of this bill more important than any mere pecuniary
interest.

The genius of our government does not allow us to establish
a compulsory system of education, as is done in some of the
countries of Europe. There are States in this Union, however,
which have adopted a compulsory system; and perhaps that
is well. It is for each State to determine. A distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island told me lately, that it is now the
law in that State that every child within its bordefs shall attend
school, and that every vagrant child shall be taken in charge by
the authorities, and sent to school. It may be well for other
States to pursue the same course; but probably the general
government can do nothing of the sort. Whether it has the
right of compulsory control or not, we propose none in this
bill. But we do propose to use that power, so effective in this
country, of letting in light on subjects, and holding them up
to the verdict of public opinion. If it could be published
annually from this Capitol, through every school district of the
United States, that there are States in the Union that have no
system of common schools, — and if their records could be
placed beside the records of such States as Massachusetts, New
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other States that have a com-
mon-school system, — the mere statement of the fact would

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION 133

rouse their energies, and compel them for shame to educate
their children. It would shame all the delinquent States out of
their delinquency.

Mr. Speaker, if I were called upon to-day to point to that in
my own State of which I am most proud, I would not point to
any of the flaming lines of her military record, to the heroic
men and the brilliant officers she gave to this contest ; I would
not point to any of her leading men of the past or the present :
but I would point to her common schools; I would point to the
honorable fact, that in the great struggle of five years, through
which we have just passed, she has expended $12,000,000 for
the support of her public schools. I do not include in that
amount the sums expended upon our higher institutions of learn-
ing. I would point to the fact, that fifty-two per cent of the
taxation of Ohio for the last five years, aside from the war-tax
and the tax for the payment of her public debt, has been for
the support of her schools. I would point to the schools of
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, and other cities of the State, if I
desired a stranger to see the glory of Ohio. I would point to
the 13,000 schoolhouses and the 700,000 pupils in the schools of
Ohio. I would point to the $3,000,000 she has paid for schools
during the last year alone. This, in my judgment, is the proper
gauge by which to measure the progress and glory of States.

Gentlemen tell us there is no need of this bill ; the States are
doing well enough now. Do they know through what a strug-
gle every State has come up that has secured a good system
of common schools? Let me illustrate this by one example.

Notwithstanding the early declaration of William Penn, •*That
which makes a good constitution must keep it, namely, men of
wisdom and virtue, — qualities that, because they descend not
with worldly inheritance, must be carefully propagated by a vir-
tuous education of youth, for which spare no cost, for by such
parsimony all that is saved is lost " ; notwithstanding that wise
master-builder incorporated this sentiment in his "framework of
government," and made it the duty of the Governor and Council
"to establish and support public schools"; notwithstanding
Benjamin Franklin, from the first hour he became a citizen of
Pennsylvania, inculcated the value of useful knowledge to every
human being in every walk of life, and by his personal and pe-
cuniary effort did establish schools and a college for Philadel-
phia; notwithstanding the Constitution of Pennsylvania made it

1 34 THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION.

obligatory upon the legislature to foster the education of the
citizens: notwithstanding all this, it was not till 1833-34 that a
system of common schools, supported in part by taxation of the
property of the State, for the common benefit of all the chil-
dren of the State, was established by law ; and although the law
was passed by an almost unanimous vote of both branches of
the legislature, so foreign was the idea of public schools to the
habits of the people, so odious was the idea of taxation for this
purpose, that even the poor who were to be specially benefited
were so deluded by political demagogues as to clamor for its
repeal. Many members who voted for the law lost their nom-
inations; and others, although nominated, lost their elections.
Some were weak enough to pledge themselves to a repeal of the
law; and in the session of 1835 there was an almost certain
prospect of its repeal, and the adoption in its place of an
odious and limited provision for educating the children of the
poor by themselves. In the darkest hour of the debate, when
the hearts of the original friends of the system were failing
from fear, there rose on the floor of the House one of its early
champions ; one who, though not a native of the State, felt like
a knife in his bosom the disgrace which the repeal of this law
would inflict; one who, though no kith or kin of his would be
benefited by the operations of the system, and who, though he
would share its burdens, would only partake with every citizen
in its blessings; one who voted for the original law although
introduced by his political opponents, and who had defended
and gloried in his vote before an angry and unwilling constit-
uency: this man, then in the beginning of his public career,
threw himself into the conflict, and by his earnest and brave
eloquence saved the law, and gave a noble system of common
schools to Pennsylvania. I doubt if at this hour, after the
thirty years crowded full of successful labors at the bar, before
the people, and in halls of legislation, the venerable and dis-
tinguished member, who now represents a portion of the same
State in this House,^ can recall any other speech of his life
with half the pleasure he does that one ; for no measure with
which his name has been connected is so fraught with bless-
ings to hundreds of thousands of children, and to homes in-
numerable. I hold in my hand a copy of his brave speech,
and I ask the clerk to read the passages that I have marked.

* Mr. Stevens.

THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION, 1 3 5

" I am comparatively a stranger among you, bom in another, in a dis-
tant State : no parent or kindred of mine did, does, or probably ever will
dwell within your borders. I have none of those strong cords to bind
me to your honor and your interest ; yet, if there is any one thing on
earth which I ardently desire above all others, it is to see Pennsylvania
standing up in her intellectual, as she confessedly does in her physical
resources, high above all her confederate rivals. How shameful, then,
would it be for these her native sons to feel less so, when the dust of their
ancestors is mingled with her soil, their friends and relatives enjoy her
present prosperity, and their descendants, for long ages to come, will par-
take of her happiness or misery, her glory or her infamy ! . . . .

" In giving this law to posterity you act the part of the philanthropist,
by bestowing upon the poor, as well as the rich, the greatest earthly boon
which they are capable of receiving ; you act the part of the philosopher,
by pointing, if you do not lead them, up the hill of science ; you act the
part of the hero, if it be true, as you say, that popular vengeance follows
dose upon your footsteps. Here, then, if you wish true popularity, is a
theatre on which you may acquire it

" Let all, therefore, who would sustain the character of the philosopher
or philanthropist, sustain this law. Those who would add thereto the
glory of the hero can acquire it here ; for, in the present state of feeling
in Pennsylvania, I am willing to admit that but littie less dangerous to
the public man is the war-club and battle-axe of savage ignorance than
to the lion-hearted Richard was the keen cimeter of the Saracen. He
who would oppose it, either through inability to comprehend the advan-
tages of general education, or from unwillingness to bestow them on all
his fellow-citizens, even to the lowest and the poorest, or from dread of
popular vengeance, seems to me to want either the head of the philoso-
pher, the heart of the philanthropist, or the nerve of the hero."

He has lived long enough to see this law, which he helped to
found in 1834, and more than any other man was instrumental
in saving from repeal in 1835, expanded and consolidated into
a noble system of public instruction. Twelve thousand schools
have been built by the voluntary taxation of the people, at a
cost, for schoolhouses alone, of nearly $10,000,000. Many mil-
lions of children have been educated in these schools. More
than seven hundred thousand attended the public schools of
Pennsylvania in 1864-65; and their annual cost, provided by
voluntary taxation in the year 1864, was nearly $3,000,000,
giving employment to sixteen thousand teachers. It is glory
enough for one man to have connected his name so honorably
with the original establishment and effective defence of such a
system.

1 36 THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION.

But it is said that the thirst for knowledge among the young,
and the pride and ambition of parents for their children, are
agencies powerful enough to establish and maintain thorough
and comprehensive systems of education. This suggestion is
answered by the unanimous voice of publicists and political
economists. They all admit that the doctrine of " demand and
supply '* does not apply to educational wants. Even the most
extreme advocates of the principle of laissez faire, as a sound
maxim of political philosophy, admit that governments must
interfere in aid of education. We must not wait for the wants
of the rising generation to be expressed in a demand for means
of education. We must ourselves discover or supply their needs
before the time for supplying them has forever passed. John
Stuart Mill says: —

" But there are other things, of the worth of which the demand of the
market is by no means a test ; things of which the utility does not consist
in ministering to inclinations, nor in serving the daily uses of life, and
the want of which is least felt where the need is greatest. This is pecu-
liarly true of those things which are chiefly useful as tending to raise the
character of human beings. The uncultivated cannot be competent
judges of cultivation.

" Those who most need to be made wiser and better usually desire it
least, and, if they desired it, would be incapable of finding the way to it
by their own lights. It will continually happen, on the voluntary system,
that, the end not being desired, the means will not be provided at all, or
that, the persons requiring improvement having an imperfect or alto-
gether erroneous conception of what they want, the supply called forth
by the demand of the market will be anything but what is really required.
Now, any well-intentioned and tolerably civilized government may tliink,
without presumption, that it does, or ought to, possess a degree of culti-
vation above the average of the community which it rules, and that it
should therefore be capable of offering better education and better in-
struction to the people than the greater number of them would sponta-
neously select.

*' Education, therefore, is one of those things which it is admissible in
principle that a government should provide for the people. The case is
one to which the reasons of the non-interference principle do not neces-
sarily or universally extend.

" With regard to elementary education, the exception to ordinary niles
may, I conceive, justifiably be carried still further. There are certain
primary elements and means of knowledge which it is in the highest de-
gree desirable that all human beings bom into the community should

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION 137

acquire during childhood. If their parents, or those on whom they de-
pend, have the power of obtaining for them this instruction, and fail to
do it, they commit a double breach of duty, — toward the children them-
selves, and toward the members of the community generally, who are all
liable to suffer seriously from the consequences of ignorance and want of
education in their fellow-citizens. It is, therefore, an allowable exercise
of the powers of a government to impose on parents the legal obligation
of giving elementary instruction to children. This, however, cannot
fairly be done without taking measures to insure that such instruction
shall be always accessible to them, either gratuitously or at a trifling
expense." *

This is the testimony of economic science. I trust the states-
men of this Congress will not think the subject of education too
humble a theme for their most serious consideration. It has en-
gaged the earnest attention of the best men of ancient and mod-
ern times, especially of modern statesmen and philanthropists.

I shall fortify the positions that I have taken by quoting the
authority of a few men who are justly regarded as teachers
of the human race. If I keep in their company, I cannot wan-
der far from the truth. I cannot greatly err while I am guided
by their counsel.

In his eloquent essay entitled "The Ready and Easy Way
to Establish a Free Commonwealth," John Milton said: **To
make the people fittest to choose, and the chosen fittest to gov-
ern, will be to mend our corrupt and faulty education, to teach
the people faith, not without virtue, temperance, modesty, so-
briety, economy, justice; not to admire wealth or honor; to
hate turbulence and ambition ; to place every one his private
welfare and happiness in the public peace, liberty and safety." ^

England's most venerable living statesman. Lord Brougham,
enforced the same truth in these noble words : —

** Lawgivers of England ! I charge ye have a care ! Be well assured
that the contempt lavished for centuries upon the cabals of Constantino-
ple, where the council disputed on a text while the enemy, the derider of
all their texts, was thundering at the gate, will be as a token of respect
compared with the loud shout of universal scorn which all mankind in
all ages will send up against you if you stand still and suffer a far dead-
lier foe than the Turcoman, — suffer the parent of all evil, all falsehood,
all hypocrisy, all discharity, all self-seeking, — him who covers over with

^ Political Economy, Book V. Chap. XI. Sec. 8 (Boston, 1848).

2 Prose Works of John Milton, Vol. II. p. 183 (Philadelphia, 1851).

138 THE NATIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCATION

pretexts of conscience the pitfalls that he digs for the souls on which he
preys, — to stalk about the fold, and lay waste its inmates, — stand still
and make no head against him, upon the vain pretext, to soothe your in-
dolence, that your action is obstructed by religious cabals, — upon the
far more guilty speculation that by playing a party game, you can turn
the hatred of conflicting professors to your selfish purposes 1 " ^

" Let the soldier be abroad if he will ; he can do nothing in this age.
There is another personage abroad, a person less imposing, — in the eye
of some, insignificant. The schoolmaster is abroad ; and I trust to him,
armed with his primer, against the soldier in full uniform array." ^

Lord Brougham gloried in the title of schoolmaster, and con-
trasted his work with that of the military conqueror in these
words : —

" The conqueror stalks onward with ' the pride, pomp, and circum-
stance of war,' banners flying, shouts rending the air, guns thundering,
and martial music pealing, to drown the shrieks of the wounded and the
lamentations for the slain. Not thus the schoolmaster in his peaceful
vocation. He meditates and prepares in secret the plans which are to
bless mankind ; he slowly gathers around him those who are to further
their execution ; he quietly though firmly advances in his humble path,
laboring steadily but calmly, till he has opened to the light all the recesses
of ignorance, and torn up by the roots the weeds of vice. His is a
progress not to be compared with anything like a march ; but it leads to
a far more brilliant triumph, and to laurels more imperishable than the
destroyer of his species, the scourge of the world, ever won." 3

The learned and brilliant Guizot, who regarded his work in
the office of Minister of Public Instruction, in the government
of France, the noblest and most valuable work of his life, has
left us this valuable testimony : " Universal education is hence-
forth one of the guaranties of liberty and social stability. As
every principle of our government is founded on justice and
reason, to diffuse education among the people, to develop their
understandings and enlighten their minds, is to strengthen their
constitutional government, and secure its stability."

In his Farewell Address, Washington wrote these words of
wise counsel : ** Promote then, as an object of primary impor-
tance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In
proportion as the structure of a government gives force to

1 I-«tter on " National Education," to the Duke of Bedford, Sept. 6, 1839.

2 Speech in the House of Commons, January 29, 1828.
' Address at Liverpool Mechanics' Institute, July, 1835.

THE NATIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION 1 39

public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be en-
lightened."

The elder Adams said : ** The wisdom and generosity of the
legislature, in making liberal appropriations in money for the
benefit of schools, academies, and colleges, is an equal honor
to them and to their constituents, a proof of their venera-
tion for letters and science, and a portent of great and lasting
good to North and South America and to the world. Great is
truth, — great is liberty, — great is humanity, — and they must
and will prevail."

Chancellor Kent used this decided language: "The parent
who sends his son into the world uneducated, and without skill
in any art or science, does a great injury to mankind as well as
to his own family, for he defrauds the community of a useful
citizen, and bequeaths to it a nuisance." ^

I shall conclude the citation of opinions with these stirring
words of Edward Everett : —

" I know not to what else we can better liken the strong appetence
of the mind for improvement, than to a hunger and tliirst after knowledge
and truth ; nor how we can better describe the province of education,
than to say it does that for the intellect which is done for the body, when
it receives the care and nourishment which are necessary for its growth
and strength. From this comparison, I think I derive new views of the
importance of education. It is now a solemn duty, a tender, sacred
trust. What, sir ! feed a child's body, and let his soul hunger ! pamper
his limbs, and starve his faculties ! Plant the earth, cover a thousand
hills with your droves of cattle, pursue the fish to their hiding-places in
the sea, and spread out your wheat-fields across the plains, in order to
supply the wants of that body which will soon be as cold and senseless
as their poorest clod, and let the pure spiritual essence within you, with
all its glorious capacities for improvement, languish and pine ! What !
build factories, tum in rivers upon the water-wheels, unchain the impris-
oned spirits of steam, to weave a garment for the body, and let the soul
remain unadorned and naked ! What ! send out your vessels to the
farthest ocean, and make battle with the monsters of the deep, in order
to obtain the means of lighting up your dwellings and workshops, and
prolonging the hours of labor for the meat that perisheth, and permit
that vital spark which God has kindled, which he has intrusted to our
care, to be fanned into a bright and heavenly flame, — permit it, I say,
to kmguish and go out ! " ^

* Commentaries, etc., Lecture XXIX.

2 Orations and Speeches on various Occasions, Vol. II. pp. 277, 278 (Boston,
1856).

I40 THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION

It is remarkable that so many good things have been said,
and so few things done, by our national statesmen, in favor of
education. If we inquire what has been done by the govern-
ments of other countries to support and advance public edu-
cation, we are compelled to confess with shame that ever>'
government in Christendom has given a ♦more intelligent and
effective support to schools than has our own.

The free cities of Germany organized the earliest school
systems after the separation of Church and State. The present
schools of Hamburg have existed more than one thousand
years. The earliest school codes were framed in the duchy
of Wiirtemberg in 1565, and in the electorate of Saxony in
1580. Under these codes were established systems of schools
more perfect, it is claimed, than the school system of any State
of the American Union. Their systems embraced the gym-
nasium and the university, and were designed, as their laws
expressed it, " to carry youth from the elements to the degree
of culture demanded for offices in Church and State."

The educational institutions of Prussia are too well known to
need a comment. It is a sufficient index of their progress and
high character, that a late Prussian school officer said of his
official duties: '* I promised God that I would look upon every
Prussian peasant child as a being who could complain of me
before God if I did not provide for him the best education as
a man and a Christian which it was possible for me to provide."

France did not think herself dishonored by learning from a
nation which she had lately conquered; and when, in 1831, she
began to provide more fully for the education of her people,
she sent the philosopher Cousin to Holland and Prussia to
study and report upon the schools of those states. Guizot was
made Minister of Public Instruction, and held the office from
1832 to 1837. In 1833 the report of Cousin was published, and
the educational system of France was established on the Prus-
sian model. No portion of his brilliant career reflects more
honor upon Guizot than his five years' work for the schools of
France. The fruits of his labors were not lost in the revolu-
tions that followed. The present Emperor is giving his best
efforts to the perfection and maintenance of schools, and is
endeavoring to make the profession of the teacher more hon-
orable and desirable than it has been hitherto.

Through the courtesy of the Secretary of State I have ob-
tained a copy of the last annual report of the Minister of Public

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION 141

Instruction in France, which exhibits the present state of edu-
cation in that empire. At the last enumeration there were in
France, in the colleges and lyceums, 65,832 pupils; in the
secondary schools, 200,000; and in the primary, or common
schools, 4,720,234. Besides the large amount raised by local
taxation, the imperial government appropriated, during the
year 1865, 2,349.051 francs for the support of primary schools.
Teaching is one of the regular professions in France ; and the
government offers prizes, and bestows honors upon the success-
ful instructor of children. During the year 1865, 1,154 prizes
were distributed to teachers in primary schools. An order of
honor, and a medal worth two hundred and fifty francs, are
awarded to the best teacher in each commune. After long and
faithful service in his profession, the teacher is retired on half-
pay, and, if broken down in health, is pensioned for life. In
1865 there were 4,245 teachers on the pension list of France.
The Minister says in his report, "The statesmen of France have
determined to show that the country knows how to honor those
who serve her, even in obscurity.** Since 1862, 10,243 libraries
for the use of common schools have been established ; and they
now contain 1,117,352 volumes, more than a third of which
have been furnished by the imperial government. Half a mil-
lion text-books are furnished for the use of children who are too
poor to buy them. It is the policy of France to afford the
means of education to every child in the empire.

When we compare the conduct of other governments with
our own, we cannot accuse ourselves so much of illiberality as
of reckless folly in the application of our liberality to the
support of schools. No government has expended so much to
so little purpose. To fourteen States alone we have given for
the support of schools 83,000 square miles of land, or an
amount of territory nearly equal to two such States as Ohio.
But how has this bountiful appropriation been applied? This
chapter in our history has never been written. No member of
this House or the Senate, no executive officer of the govern-
ment, now knows, and no man ever did know, what disposition
has been made of this immense bounty. This bill requires
the Commissioner of Education to report to Congress what
lands have been given to schools, and how the proceeds have
been applied. If we arc not willing to follow the example of
our fathers in giving, let us, at least, have the evidence of the
beneficial results of their liberality.

142 THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION

Mr. Speaker, I have thus hurriedly and imperfectly ex-
hibited the magnitude of the interests involved in the education
of American youth; the peculiar condition of affairs which
demands at this time an increase of our educational forces ; the
failure of a majority of the States to establish school systems,
the long struggles through which others have passed in achiev-
ing success; and the humiliating contrast between the action
of our government and those of other nations in reference to
education : but I cannot close without referring to the bearing
of this measure upon the peculiar work of this Congress.

When the history of the Thirty-ninth Congress is written, it
will be recorded that two great ideas inspired it, and made their
impress upon all its efforts; namely, to build up free States
on the ruins of slavery, and to extend to every inhabitant of
the United States the rights and privileges of citizenship. Be-
fore the Divine Architect builded order out of chaos, he said,
" Let there be light." Shall we commit the fatal mistake of
building up free States, without first expelling the darkness in
which slavery had shrouded their people? Shall we enlarge
the boundaries of citizenship, and make no provision to in-
crease the intelligence of the citizen? I share most fully in
the aspirations of this Congress, and give my most cordial
support to its policy; but I believe its work will prove a
disastrous failure unless it makes the schoolmaster its ally,
and aids him in preparing the children of the United States to
perfect the work now begun.

The stork is a sacred bird in Holland, and is protected by
her laws, because it destroys those animals which would under-
mine the dikes, and let the sea again overwhelm the rich fields
of the Netherlands. Shall this government do nothing to fos-
ter and strengthen those educational agencies which alone can
shield the coming generations from ignorance and vice, and
make it the impregnable bulwark of liberty and law?

I know that this is not a measure which is likely to attract
the attention of those whose chief work it is to watch the politi-
cal movements that affect the results of nominating conven-
tions and elections. The mere politician will see in it nothing
valuable, for the millions of children to be benefited by it can
give him no votes. But I appeal to those who care more for
the future safety and glory of this nation than for any mere
temporary advantage, to aid in giving to education the public
recognition and active support of the Federal government.

THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY

COMMISSIONS.

ARGUMENT MADE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES IN EX PARTE L. P. MILLIGAN,

W. A. BOWLES, AND STEPHEN HORSEY.

March 6, i866i

The efforts made by the government to suppress the Southern Rebel-
lion early encountered serious opposition in some of the loyal, and even
in Northern States. The nature and the extent of this opposition fills
lai^e space in the history of the time. Sometimes it went as far as the
charges made against the petitioners in the cases argued by Mr. Garfield
in this speech; but in a far greater number of instances the opposi-
tion fen short of the crimes therein charged. Unpatriotic and dis-
loyal practices became so numerous, were carried to such an extent, so
weakened the government, and so disturbed the public peace, that the
national authorities felt compelled to deal with their perpetrators. In
that day of excitement, stress, and violence, the authorities sometimes^
proceeded to extremities. Commonly these extremer measures were taken
by the military commanders in the several military districts. The slow-
going processes of the civil courts, it was held, were insufficient to
punish, and so to prevent treason. Hence martial law sometimes took
the place of civil law, and military commissions the place of civil courts.
The MilUgan, Bowles, and Horsey cases originated in an attempt to sup-
press alleged treason. Their history, to the time when they appeared in
the Supreme Court at Washington, is given by Mr. Garfield in the first
paragraphs of his speech, and the facts need not be here recited. The
question of the guilt or innocence of the petitioners, Milligan, Bowles,
and Horsey, was not in issue before the court, but solely the question
of the legality of their trial and condemnation by a military commission.
More specifically it was this : Shall a writ of habeas corpus issue, taking
the prisoners out of the custody of the military authorities? The peti-
tion of the prisoners was granted. This is the order of the court, as an-
nounced by Chief Justice Chase ; the decision was given the next term.

" I. That on the facts, as stated in said petition and exhibits, a writ of
habeas corpus ought to be issued, according to the prayer of said
petition.

144 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

" II. That on the facts stated in the said petition and exhibits, the
said Lambdin P. Milligan ought to be discharged from custody as in said
petition is prayed, and according to the act of Congress, passed 3d
March, 1863, entitled, ' An Act relating to Habeas Corpus ^ and regulating
Judicial Proceedings in certain Cases.'

"III. That, on the facts stated in said petition and exhibits, the mili-
tary commission mentioned therein had no jurisdiction legally to try and
sentence said Lambdin P. Milligan in the manner and form as in said
petition and exhibits are stated.

" And it is therefore now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that
it be so certified to the said Circuit Court.*'

This was Mr. Garfield's first appearance in the Supreme Court of the
United States. He was associated with Hon. J. E. McDonald, Hon.
J. S. Black, and Hon. D. D. Field. The United States was represented
by Hon. James Speed, Attorney- General, Hon. B. F. Buder, and Hon.
Henry Stanberry.

Mr. Garfield's appearance in these cases subjected him to severe crit-
icism in Ohio, and especially in his own district. His appearance was
held, by those thus criticising, inconsistent with his political and public
character. The criticism was sharpened by the popular feeling that the
prisoners were guilty of the crimes charged. Replying at Warren, Ohio,
September 19, 1874, to certain attacks upon his public character, Mr.
Garfield thus referred to his connection with these cases : —

"Just about that time there had been in Congress a very considerable
discussion concerning the arbitrary conduct of some of our officers in
carrying, in civil communities, the military jurisdiction and rule further
than they were warranted by the Constitution, and I had taken strong
grounds in Congress against the exercise of military power in States not
in rebellion. It being generally known that I had resisted what some of
the more extreme of our own party thought the military authorities might
safely do, I was asked if I would be willing to argue the case of Bowles
and Milligan before the Supreme Court. I answered, * If the case turns
on the justice of those men being punished, I will not defend them in
any way whatever, for I believe they deserve the severest punishment ;
but if it turns on the question as to who has the power to try those
men, I will. I believe that there is no authority under the Constitu-
tion and laws of the United States to take a citizen of Indiana not a
soldier and import a military tribunal to his home to try him and pun-
ish him.' So important did I regard this principle to the future of this
country in that exciting time, that, with my eyes open to the fact that I
took a ver)' great political risk in defending, not Bowles and Milligan, but
the right of every citizen in a civil community where war is not raging to
be tried by the courts of the country and before juries of his own land,
and not to be dragged away outside of his owti doors to be tried by a

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 145

military organization brought from a distance, I made the argument now
complained of- I believed that, having put down the Rebellion, having
saved civil liberty in this country against cruel invasion, we ought also to
save it from our own recklessness.

" I happen to have with me a copy of the argument that I made before
the Supreme Court in the year 1866; and I desire to say that I felt,
when I made that argument, that I was doing as worthy a thing as
I had ever done, and I look back upon it to-night with as much sin-
cere pride and satisfaction as upon any act of my public life. I
ought to add, that I have never even seen Bowles or Milligan. I knew
that they were poor, and probably could not pay for their defence. I
was never promised and never received any compensation for it. I paid
the expense of printing my own brief and argument. I never received
any compensation for it; I did it in defence of what I believe to
be a most vital and important principle, not only to the Republican
party, but to the nation ; namely, that in no part of our civil commu-
nity must the military be exalted above the civil authority, and that
those men, however unworthy, however guilty, and however disloyal to
their country, should not be tried by any but a lawful, civil tribunal.
Congress had provided laws for trying every crime that those men were
charged with, and for trying it by a civil court. Now, I believe that all
over this land one of the great landmarks of civilization and civil liberty
is the self-restraining power of the American people, curbing themselves
and governing themselves by the limit of the civil law. I remind you of
the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously sustained the position I
took in that argument. There were some differences as to the reasoning
by which the court reached the result ; but the ruling of the court was
unanimous, that the trial had been unauthorized by law, and that the men
must therefore be released. That did not release them, however, from
the right of the government to try them in the civil courts for the crimes
with which they were charged. A note that was handed to me at the
door called upon me to explain how it was that I, a Republican and a
Representative, gave my voice and whatever ability I possessed as a
lawyer to save Rebel conspirators from punishment. My answer was,
* Hang them if guilty, but hang them according to law ; if you hang
them otherwise, you commit murder.' "

** Nullus liber homo capiatur, vcl imprisonctur, aut dissaisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exulctur,
aut aliquo modo dcstruatur, nee super eum ibimus, nee super eum mittemus, nisi per legale
judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terra;." — Magna Carta^ Cap. XXXIX.

MAY IT PLEASE THE CoURT, — In the months of Septem-
ber and October, 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan, William

A. Bowles, and Stephen Horsey, natives of the United States
VOL I. 10

146 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

and citizens of the State of Indiana, were arrested by order of
Alvin P. Hovey, Major-General commanding the military dis-
trict of Indiana, and on the 2ist of the latter month were
placed on trial before a military commission convened at Indi-
anapolis, by order of General Hovey, on the following charges,
preferred by Major Henry L. Burnett, Judge Advocate of the
Northwestern Military Department, viz. : —

1. "Conspiracy against the government of the United States."

2. " Affording aid and comfort to rebels against the govern-
ment of the United States."

3. " Inciting insurrection."

4. ** Disloyal practices."

5. "Violations of the laws of war."

The Commission, overruling the objection of the accused
against its authority to try them, proceeded with the trial, pro-
nounced them guilty, and sentenced them to death by hanging.
The sentence was approved on the 2d of May, 1865 ; but before
the day fixed for its execution, the President of the United
States commuted it to imprisonment for life, and the prisoners
are now confined in the penitentiary of Ohio.

On the loth of the same month, they filed their petition in
the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of In-
diana, setting forth the above facts, and also declaring, that,
while the petitioners were held in military custody, and more
than twenty days after their arrest, a grand jury of the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District of Indiana was con-
vened at Indianapolis, the petitioners' place of confinement, and,
being duly impanelled, charged, and sworn for said district,
held its sittings, and finally adjourned, without having found
any bill of indictment, or made any presentment whatever
against them; that at no time had they been in the military
service of the United States, or in any way connected with the
land or naval force, or the militia in actual service; that they
had not been within the limits of any State whose citizens were
engaged in rebellion against the United States, at any time
during the war, but during all the time aforesaid, and for twenty
years last past, had been inhabitants, residents, and citizens of
Indiana. The petitioners* claim to be discharged from mili-
tary custody was founded upon the provisions of an act of Con-
gress of March 3, 1863, entitled "An Act relative to Habeas
Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in certain Cases."

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 147

On hearing the petition, the opinions of the judges of the Cir-
cuit Court were opposed, and they have certified to this court
for its decisioii the following questions, viz. : —

1. On the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, ought a
writ of habeas corpus to be issued, according to the prayer of
said petitioners?

2. On the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, ought the
petitioners to be discharged from custody, as in said petition
prayed ?

3. Whether, upon the facts stated in said petition and exhib-
its, the military Commission mentioned therein had jurisdiction
legally to try and sentence said petitioners in manner and form
as in said petition and exhibits is stated.

These preliminary proceedings have been so fully stated and
examined by the gentleman who opened the cause,^ that I need
not dwell upon them further.

I desire to say, in the outset, that the questions now before
this court have relation only to constitutional law, and involve
neither the guilt or the innocence of the relators, nor the mo-
tives and patriotism of the officers who tried and sentenced
them. I trust I need not say in this presence, that in my esti-
mation nothing in the calendar of infamy can be more abhor-
rent than the crimes with which the relators were charged;
nothing that more fully deserves the swift vengeance of the
law, and the execration of mankind. But the questions before
your Honors are not personal. They reach those deep foun-
dations of law on which the republic is built; and in their
proper settlement are involved the highest interests of every
citizen.

Had the military Commission jurisdiction legally to try and
sentence the petitioners? Upon the determination of this ques-
tion the whole cause rests. If the Commission had such juris-
diction, the petitioners are legally imprisoned, and should not
be discharged from custody ; nor should a writ of habeas corpus
be issued in answer to their prayer. If the military Commis-
sion had not jurisdiction, the trial was void, the sentence illegal,
•and should not be further executed.

As a first step toward reaching an answer to this question,
I affirm that every citizen of the United States is under the
dominion of law ; that, whether he be a civilian, a soldier, or a

1 Hon. J. E. McDonald.

148 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

sailor, the Constitution provides for him a tribunal before which
he may be protected if innocent, and punished if guilty of
crime. In the fifth article of the Amendments td the Constitu-
tion it is declared that —

" No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infa-
mous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when
in actual service in time of war or public danger ; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness
against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use with-
out just compensation."

This sweeping provision covers every person under the juris-
diction of the Constitution. To the general rule of presentment
or indictment of a grand jury, there are three exceptions:
first, cases arising in the land forces ; second, cases arising in
the naval forces ; third, cases arising in the militia when in
actual service in time of war or public danger. All these
classes are covered by express provisions of the Constitution.
In whatever one of these situations an American citizen may
be placed, his rights are clearly defined, and a remedy is
provided against oppression and injustice. The Constitution
establishes the Supreme Court, and empowers Congress to con-
stitute tribunals inferior to that court; **to make rules for the
government and regulation of the land and naval forces," and
to provide for governing such part of the militia as may be
employed in the service of the United States. No other tri-
bunal is authorized or recognized by the Constitution. No
other is established by the laws of Congress. For all cases
not arising in the land or naval forces. Congress has amply
provided in the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, and the
acts amendatory thereof. For all cases arising in the naval
forces, it has fully provided in the act of March 2, 1799, **for
the Government of the Navy of the United States," and in sim-
ilar subsequent acts.

But since the opposing counsel do not claim to find authority
for the tribunal before which the petitioners were tried in cither
of these categories, I shall proceed to examine, somewhat mi-
nutely, the limits and boundaries of the military department ;
the character of its tribunals ; the classes of persons who come

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 149

within its jurisdiction; and the defences which the law has
thrown around them.

We are apt to regard the military department of the govern-
ment as an organized despotism, in which all personal rights
are merged in the will of the commander-in-chief. But that
department has definitely marked boundaries, and all its mem-
bers are not only controlled, but also sacredly protected, by
definitely prescribed law. The first law of the Revolutionary
Congfress touching the organization of the army, passed Sep-
tember 20, 1776, provided that no officer or soldier should be
kept in arrest more than eight days without being furnished
with the written charges and specifications against him ; that he
should be tried, at as early a day as possible, by a regular mili-
tary court, whose proceedings were regulated by law, and that no
sentence should be carried into execution until the full record of
the trial had been submitted to Congress or to the commander-
in-chief, and his or their direction be signified thereon. From
year to year Congress has added new safeguards to protect the
rights of our soldiers, and the Rules and Articles of War are as
really a part of the laws of the land as the Judiciary Act or the
act establishing the Treasury Department. If the humblest pri-
vate soldier in the army be wronged by his commanding officer,
he may demand redress by sending the statement of his griev-
ance step by step through the appointed channels, till it reaches
the President or Congress, if justice be not done him sooner.

The main boundary line between the civil and military juris-
dictions is the muster into service. Before that act the citi-
zen is subject to the jurisdiction of the civil courts ; after it,
until his muster out, he is subject to the military jurisdiction in
all matters of military duty. This line has been carefully sur-
veyed by the courts, and fixed as the lawful boundary. They
do not regard a citizen as coming under the jurisdiction of a
Federal court-martial, even when he has been ordered into the
military service by the Governor of his State, on requisition of
the President, until he reaches the place of general rendezvous,
and has been actually mustered into the service of the United
States. On this point I cite the case of Mills v, Martin.^ In
that case, a militiaman, called out by the Governor of the State
of New York, and ordered by him to enter the service of the
United States, on a requisition of the President for troops, re-

1 19 Johnson's N. Y. Reports, 6.

1 50 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

fused to obey the summons, and was tried by a Federal court-
martial for disobedience of orders. The Supreme Court of the
State of New York decided that, until he had gone to the place
of general rendezvous, and had been regularly enrolled, and
mustered into the national militia, he was not amenable to the
action of a court-martial composed of officers of the United
States. The judge, in giving his opinion, quoted the following
language of Mr. Justice Washington, of the Supreme Court of
the United States, in the case of Houston v, Moore : ** From
this brief summary of the laws, it would seem that actual service
was considered by Congress as the criterion of national militia ;
and that the service did not commence until the arrival of the
militia at the place of rendezvous. That is the termimis a quo
the service, the pay, and subjection to the articles of war, are
to commence and continue.*' ^

By the sixtieth Article of War, the military jurisdiction is so
extended as to cover those persons not mustered into the ser-
vice, but necessarily connected with the army. It provides that
" All sutlers and retainers to the camp, and all persons whatso-
ever serving with the armies of the United States in the field,
though not enlisted soldiers, are to be subject to orders, accord-
ing to the Rules and Articles of War." ^

That the question of jurisdiction might not be doubtful, it
was thought necessary to provide by law of Congress that spies
should be subject to trial by court-martial. As the law stood
for eighty-five years, spies were described as ** persons not citi-
zens of, or owning allegiance to, the United States, who shall be
found lurking," etc. Not until after the great Rebellion began
was this law so amended as to allow the punishment by court-
martial of citizens of the United States who should be found
lurking about the lines of our army to betray it to the enemy ;
for until then, be it said to the honor of our people, it had
never been thought possible that any American citizen would
become a spy, to aid the enemies of the Republic ; but in 1 862
the law was so amended that such a citizen, if found lurking
about the lines of the army as a spy, in time of war, should be
tried by a court-martial as though he were a spy of a foreign
nation.

It is evident, therefore, that by no loose and general construc-
tion of the law can citizens be held amenable to military tribu-

1 5 Wheat on, 20. " Army Regulations, 1 861.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 5 1

nals, whose jurisdiction extends only to persons mustered into
the military service, and such other classes of persons as are,
by express provisions of law, made subject to the rules and arti-
cles of war.

But even within their proper jurisdiction military courts are,
in many important particulars, subordinate to the civil courts.
This is acknowledged by the leading authorities on this subject.
I read from O'Brien's Military Law. After discussing the gen-
eral relations between the civil and military departments of the
government, he says : —

" From this admitted principle, it would seem a necessary consequence
that the Supreme Court of the United States has an inherent power over
all military tribunals, of precisely the same nature as that which it asserts
and exercises over inferior courts of civil judicature. Any mandatory
or prohibitory writ, therefore, emanating from the Supreme Court of the
United States, and addressed to a court-martial, would demand the most
unhesitating obedience on the part of the latter. Whether, in the ab-
sence of a special law to that effect, the same obedience is due to a writ
coming from a Circuit or District Court of the Union, and directed to
a court-martial assembled in the district or circuit, does not appear to be
so clear. A military tribunal would doubtless obey such a writ. As to
State courts, the case is very different. Military courts are entirely inde-
pendent of them. Their powers are derived from a distinct, separate, and
independent source. In regard to the courts of the United States, there

can be no question Each individual member of a court-martial

is also liable to the supreme courts of civil judicature, not only for any
abuse of power, but for any illegal proceedings of the court, if he has

voted for or participated in the same

" The authority of courts- martial is sometimes extended by executive
governments, subjecting, by proclamation, certain districts or countries
to the jurisdiction of martial law during the existence of a rebellion.
But in all such cases a court-martial ought to be fully assured that the
warrant or order under which they are assembled is strictly legal ; and that
the prisoners brought before them were actually apprehended in the par-
ticular district or country which may have been subjected to martial law,
and during the period that the proclamation was actually in force. Any
error in these particulars would render their whole proceedings illegal." *

In further vindication of my last proposition, I shall cite a
few precedents from English and American history.

I. A Lieutenant Fr>'e. serving in the West Indies in 1743 on
board the Oxford, a British man-of-war, was ordered by his

* Pages 222-226 (Philadelphia, 1846).

I S 2 MTLITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

I

superior officer to assist in arresting another officer and bringing
him on board the ship as a prisoner. The Lieutenant, doubting
the legality of the order, demanded — what he had, according to
the customs of the naval service, a right to demand — a written
order before he would obey the command. For this he was
put under arrest, tried by a naval court-martial, sentenced to
fifteen years' imprisonment, and forever debarred from serving
the King. He was sent to England to be imprisoned, but was
released by order of the Privy Council. In 1746 he brought
an action before a civil court against the president of the court-
martial, Sir Chaloner Ogle, and damages of ;^i,ooo were awarded
him for his illegal detention and sentence ; and the learned judge
informed him that he might also bring his action against any
member of the court-martial. Rear- Admiral Mayne and Captain
Rentone, who were members of the court that tried him, were,
at the time when damages were awarded to Lieutenant Frye, sit-
ting on a naval court-martial for the trial of Vice- Admiral Les-
tock. The Lieutenant proceeded against them, and they were
arrested upon a writ from the Court of Common Pleas. The
order of arrest was served upon them just as the court-martial
adjourned, one afternoon. Its members, fifteen in number, im-
mediately reassembled and passed resolutions declaring it a great
insult to the dignity of the naval service that any person, how-
ever high in civil authority, should order the arrest of a naval
officer for any of his official acts. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir
John Willes, immediately ordered the arrest of all the members
of the court who signed the resolutions, and they were arrested.
They appealed to the King, who was very indignant at the ar-
rest. The judge, however, persevered in his determination to
maintain the supremacy of the civil law, and after two months'
examination and investigation of the cause all the members of
the court-martial signed an humble and submissive letter of
apology, begging leave to withdraw their resolutions, in order
to put an end to further proceedings. When the Lord Chief
Justice had heard the letter read in open court, he directed that it
be recorded in the Remembrance Office, ** as a memorial to the
present and future ages, that whoever set themselves up in op-
position to the laws, or think themselves above the law, will in
the end find themselves mistaken." ^

1 See Mc Arthur on Courts-Martial, (London, 1806,) Vol. 1. pp. 229-232. See
also Ix)ndon Gazette for 1745-46, Library of Congress.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 5 3

2. I beg leave to cite the case of Wilson v, MacKenzie. This
court will remember the remarkable mutiny, in 1842, on board
the brig Somers, in which a son of the then Secretary of the
Treasury of the United States was tried by court-martial for
mutiny, and executed at the yard-arm. It was proved that a
mutiny of very threatening aspect had broken out, and that the
lives of the captain and his officers were threatened by the
mutineers. Among the persons arrested was the plaintiff, Wil-
son, an enlisted sailor, who, being supposed to be in the con-
spiracy, was knocked down by the captain, ironed, and held in
confinement for a number of days. When the cruise was ended,
Wilson brought suit against the captain for illegal arrest and
imprisonment. The cause was tried before the Supreme Court
of New York, and his Honor, Chief Justice Nelson, delivered
the opinion of the court. He says : —

" The material question presented in this case is, whether the com-
mon law courts have any jurisdiction of personal wrongs committed by a
superior officer of the navy upon a subordinate, while at sea, and engaged
in the public service Actions of trespass for injuries to the per-
son have been frequently brought and sustained in the common law
courts of England, against naval as well as military commanders, by their
subordinates, for acts done both at home and abroad, under pretence
and color of naval and military discipline. (See Wall v, McNamara, and
Swinton v. Molloy, stated in i T. R. 536, 537 ; also, Mostyn v. Fabrigas,
Cowp. 161 ; Warden v. Bailey, 4 Taunt. 67 ; 4 Maule & Selw. 400, S. C.)
.... There are are also many cases in the books where actions have
been sustained against members of courts-martial, naval and military, who
have exceeded their authority in the infliction of punishment. (See
4 Taunt. 70-75, and the cases there cited.) .... It was suggested on
the argument, by the counsel for the defendant, that, inasmuch as he
[\Vilson] was in the service of the United States when the acts com-
plained of were done, the courts of this State, as matter of comity and

policy, should decline to take jurisdiction I am of opinion that

the demurrer [to the suggestion] is well taken, and that the plaintiff
[Wilson] is entitled to judgment. Ordered accordingly." ^

3. As a clear and exhaustive statement of the relation be-
tween civil and military courts, I quote from an opinion of this
court in the case of Dynes v. Hoover^: —

" With the sentences of courts- martial which have been convened
regularly, and have proceeded legally, and by which punishments are
directed, not forbidden by law, or which are according to the laws and

1 7 HiU's N. Y. Supreme Court Reports, 97-100. ^ 20 Howard, 82, Sj.

1 54 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

customs of the sea, civil courts have nothing to do, nor are they in any
way alterable by them. If it were otherwise, the civil courts would vir-
tually administer the Rules and Articles of War, irrespective of those to
whom that duty and obligation has been confided by the laws of the
United States, from whose decisions no appeal or jurisdiction of any kind
has been given to the civil magistrate or civil courts. But we repeat, if
a court-martial has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the charge it
has been convened to try, or shall inflict a punishment forbidden by the
laWy though its sentence shall be approved by the officers having a re-
visory power of it, civil courts may, on an action by a party aggrieved by
it, inquire into the want of the court's jurisdiction, and give him redress.
(Harman v, Tappenden, i East, 555 ; as to ministerial officers, Mar-
shall's Case, 10 Cr. 76 ; Moravia v, Sloper, Willes, 30 ; Parton v, Wil-
liams, 3 B. & A. 330 ; and as to justices of the peace, by Lord Tenterden,
in Basten v, Carew, 3 B. & C. 653 ; Mills v, Collett, 6 Bing. 85.)

" Such is the law of England. By the Mutiny Acts, courts-martial
have been created with authority to try those who are a part of the army
or navy for breaches of military or naval duty. It has been repeatedly
determined that the sentences of those courts are conclusive in any action
brought in the courts of common law. But the courts of common law
will examine whether courts-martial have exceeded the jurisdiction given
them, though it is said, ' not, however, after the sentence has been rati-
fied and carried into execution.' (Grant ?'. Gould, 2 H. Black. 69 ;
Ship Bounty, i East, 313 ; Shalford's case, i East, 313 ; Mann v, Owen,
9 B. & C. 595 ; In the Matter of Poe, 5 B. & A. 681, on a motion for a
prohibition.)"

I hold it therefore established, that the Supreme Court of
the United States may inquire into the question of jurisdiction
of a military court; may take cognizance of extraordinary pun-
ishment inflicted by such a court not warranted by law, and
may issue writs of prohibition, or give such other redress as
the case may require. It is also clear that the Constitution and
laws of the United States have carefully provided for the pro-
tection of individual liberty, and the right of accused persons
to a speedy trial before a tribunal established and regulated
by law.

The petitioners must, as I have already shown, be placed in
one of four categories. First, they were either in the naval
service ; or, second, in the military service ; or, third, belonged
to the militia, and were called out to serve by order of the Pres-
ident in the national militia; or, fourth, if neither of these three,
nor so connected with them as to be placed by law under the

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 5 5

naval or military jurisdiction, then they were simply civilians,
and subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
It is set forth in the petition, and not denied by the opposing
counsel, that they were in neither of the first three classes, nor
connected with them. They must, therefore, belong to the
fourth class, — unless a fifth should be added, as the learned
counsel on the other side have suggested, and it be held that
they were prisoners of war ; but of that I shall speak hereafter.
Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the learned
counsel should go beyond the Constitution, beyond the civil, the
naval, and even the military law, to find a basis on which they
may rest the jurisdiction of the tribunal before which the peti-
tioners were tried. They tell us frankly that they do not find its
justification either in the civil or military laws of the land.

The Honorable Attorney-General and his distinguished col-
league* declare in their printed brief, that, —

I. " A military commission derives its powers and authority
wholly from martial law ; and by that law and by military au-
thority only are its proceedings to be judged or reviewed."

II. " Martial law is the will of the commanding officer of an
armed force, or of a geographical military department, ex-
pressed in time of war, within the limits of his military jurisdic-
tion, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or
enlarged by the orders of his military chief or supreme ex-
ecutive ruler,'* and " the officer executing martial law is at the
same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme
executive."

To give any color of plausibility to these novel propositions,
they were compelled not only to ignore the Constitution, but to
declare it suspended, its voice drowned in the thunders of war.
Accordingly, with consistent boldness, they declare that the
third, fourth, and fifth articles of Amendments '* are all peace
provisions of the Constitution, and, like all other conventional
and legislative laws and enactments, are silent inter armUy when
salus populi suprana est lex" Applying these doctrines to this
cause, they hold that from the 5 th of October, 1864, to the
9th of May, 1865, martial law alone existed in Indiana; that it
silenced not only the civil courts, but all the laws of the land,
and even the Constitution itself; and during that silence the
executor of martial law could lay his hand upon every citizen,

» Hon. R F. Duller.

IS6 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

could not only suspend the writ of habeas corpus^ but could
create a court which should have the exclusive jurisdiction over
the citizen to try him, sentence him, and put him to death.

We have already seen that the Congress of the United States
raises and supports armies, provides and maintains navies, and
makes the rules and regulations for the government of both ;
but it would appear from the teachings of the learned counsel
on the other side, that when Congress has done all these things,
— when, in the name of the republic, and in order to put down
rebellion and restore the supremacy of law, it has created the
grandest army that ever fought, — the power thus created rises
aboye its source and destroys both the law and its creator. They
would have us believe that the government of the United States
has evoked a spirit which it cannot lay, — has calkd into being
a power which at once destroyed and superseded its author,
and rode, in uncontrolled triumph, over citizen and court. Con-
gress and Constitution. All this mockery is uttered before this
august court, whose every member is sworn to administer the
law in accordance with the Constitution. This monstrous as-
sumption I shall now proceed to examine.

And now what is martial law? It is a new term to American
jurisprudence ; and I congratulate this court that never before
in the long history of this republic has that word rung out its
lawless echoes in this sacred chamber.

Mr. Butler. Did not the decision in the case of Luther v, Borden
have something to do with martial law ?

It was not the subject decided by the court, and only remote-
ly analogous to this case. The claim to exercise martial law in
that case was under the old charter of Charles II. in Rhode
Island, and not under the Constitution.

I. Sir Matthew Hale, in his History of the Common Law,
says : —

" Touching the business of martial law, these things are to be ob-
served, viz. : —

" First. That in truth and reality it is not a law, but something in-
dulged rather than allowed as a law. The necessity of government,
order, and discipline in an army is that only which can give those
laws a countenance ; — quod enim necessitas cogit defendi,

" Secondly. This indulged law was only to extend to members of the
army, or to those of the opposite army, and never was so much indulged
as intended to be executed or exercised upon others. For others who

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. IS7

were not listed under the army had no color or reason to be bound by
military constitutions applicable only to the army, whereof they were not
parts. But they were to be ordered and governed according to the laws
to which they were subject, though it were a time of war.

" Thirdly. That the exercise of martial law, whereby any person should
lose his life, or member, or liberty, may not be permitted in time of peace,
when the King's courts are open for all persons to receive justice accord-
ing to the laws of the land. This is in substance declared in the Petition
of Right, 3 Car. i, whereby such commissions and martial law were re-
pealed and declared to be contrary to law." ^

2. Blackstone quotes the above approvingly, and still further
enforces the same doctrine.^

3. Wharton, in his Law Lexicon, says: "Martial law is that
rule of action which is imposed by the military power. It has
no place in the institutions of this country [Great Britain], un-
less the articles of war established under the military acts be
considered as of that character. The prerogative of proclaim-
ing martial law within this kingdom is destroyed, as it would
appear, by the Petition of Right." ^

4. Lord Wellington defined martial law as " the will of the
commanding general exercised over a conquered or occupied
territory." This definition was given by him in his despatches
from the Peninsula, and was subsequently repeated in Parlia-
ment, in 1 85 1. In the same debate, Lords Cottenham and
Campbell, and the Attorney-General, Sir J. Jcrvis, declared that
" martial law was the setting aside of all law, and acting under
military power, in circumstances of great emergency, — a pro-
ceeding w'hich requires to be followed up by an act of in-
demnity."

This is the kind of law to which the gentlemen appeal to
establish the validity of the court that tried the petitioners.

In order to trace the history and exhibit the character of mar-
tial law, I shall refer to several leading precedents in English
history.

I. The Earl of Lancaster. In the year 1322, the Earl of Lan-
caster and the Earl of Hereford rebelled against the authority
of Edward II. They collected an army so large that Edward
was compelled to raise thirty thousand men to withstand them.
The rebellious Earls posted their forces on the Trent, and the

1 London edition of 1794, Vol. I. pp. 54, 55. 2 Book I. pp. 413, 414.

8 Third edition, p. 578.

IS8 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

armies of the King confronted them. They fought at Borough-
bridge; the insurgent forces were overthrown; Hereford was
slain, and Lancaster, taken in arms at the head of his army, was,
amid the noise of battle, tried by a court-martial, sentenced
to death, and executed. When Edward III. came into power,
five years later, on a formal petition presented to Parliament
by Lancaster's son, setting forth the facts, the case was ex-
amined and a law was enacted reversing the attainder, and
declaring: " i. That in time of peace no man ought to be ad-
judged to death for treason, or any other offence, without being
arraigned and put to answer. 2. That regularly, when the Kifigs
courts are open, it is a time of peace in judgment of law. 3. That
no man ought to be sentenced to death, by the record of the
King, without his legal XxitX per pares T ^

I call attention to this case as being similar in some of the
points to the cause before us. This man was taken in arms at
the head of his army, and in battle. He was immediately tried
by court-martial and executed ; but it was declared, in the de-
cree that reversed the attainder, that he might have been tried
by the courts of the land, and therefore, for the purposes of his
trial, it was a time of peace ; that he might have been presented,
indicted, and regularly tried before the civil tribunal, and there-
fore the whole proceeding was illegal. So carefully was the line
drawn between civil and martial law five hundred years ago.

2. Sir Thomas Darnell. He was arrested and imprisoned in
1625, by order of the King, for refusing to pay a tax which he
regarded as illegal. A writ of habeas corpus was prayed for, but
answer was returned by the court that he had been arrested by
special order of the King, and that was held to be a sufficient
answer to the petition. Then the great cause came up to be
tried in Parliament, whether the order of the King was suffi-
cient to override the writ of habeas coffus, and after a long
and stormy debate, in which the ablest minds in England were
engaged, the Petition of Right, of 1628, received the sanction of
the King. In that statute it was decreed that the King should
never again suspend the writ of habeas corpus ; that he should
never again try a subject by military commission; and since
that day, no king of England has presumed to usurp that high
prerogative which belongs to Parliament alone.

1 The History of the Picas of the Crown, by Sir Matthew Hale, (Dublin, 1778,)
Vol. I. p. 347 ; Humc*s History of England, (Boston, 1854,) Vol. II. p. 159.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 1 59

3. For the purpose of citing a passage in the argument of
Counsellor Prynn, I call attention to the trial of Lord Macguire.
before the Court of King's Bench, in 1645.^ Lord Macguire
was the leader of the great Irish rebellion of 1641, during the
progress of which more than one hundred thousand men, wo-
men, and children were murdered, under circumstances of the
greatest brutality. He was arrested and held until order had
been restored; and in 1645 was brought before the King's
Bench for trial. Mr. Prynn, counsel for the Crown, published
his argument in the case, in order, as he says, to vindicate the
laws of England —

" In trying this notorious offender, guilty of the horridest, universalest
treason and rebellion that ever brake forth in Ireland ; and that in a time
of open war both in Ireland and England, only by a legal indictment,
and indifferent sworn jury of honest and lawful freeholders, according to
the known laws and statutes of the realm ; not in a court-martial, or any
other new-minted judicature, by an arbitrary, summary, illegal, or martial
proceeding, without any lawful presentment, indictment, or trial by a
sworn, impartial, able jury, resolved to be diametrically contrary to the
fundamental laws, customs, great charters, statutes of the realm, and in-
herent liberty of the subject, especially in time of peace when all other
courts of justice are open, and of very dangerous consequence, and
thereupon especially prohibited, and enacted against."

After giving a long list of references to authorities, he goes
on to say that the law is vindicated still more —

" In allowing him a free, honorable trial upon an indictment first
found upon oath by the grand jury, and then suffering him to take not
only his particular challenges by the poll to every of the jurors returned,
upon a voyre dire (not formerly heard of, yet allowed him, as reasonable,
to take away all color of partiality or non-indifference in the jurors),
whereupon every juryman was examined before he was sworn of the jury,
whether he had contributed or advanced any moneys upon the proposi-
tions for Ireland, or was to have any share in the rebels' lands in Ireland,
by act of Parliament, or otherwise. But likewise in permitting him to
take his peremptory challenge to thirty-five of the two juries returned,
without any particular cause alleged; which liberty — our laws allowing
men, in favorem vitcc, and because there may be private causes of just
exceptions to them known to the prisoner, not fit to be revealed, or for
which he wants present proof, and that in cases of high treason, as well
as of felony — the court thought just and equal to allow the same to
him, though a notorious Irish rebel." *

' 4 State Trials, (London, 1809,) pj). 653 et seq. - Ibid., pp. 691-693.

l6o MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

4. The Bill of Rights of 1688. The house of Stuart had
been expelled, and William had succeeded to the British throne.
Great disturbances had arisen in the realm in consequence of
the change of dynasty. Plots were formed in favor of James in
all parts of England. The King's person was unsafe in Lon-
don. He informed the Lords and Commons of the great dan-
gers that threatened the kingdom, and reminded them that he
had no right to declare martial law, to suspend the writ of habeas
corpus^ or to seize and imprison his subjects on suspicion of
treason or intended outbreak against the peace of the realm.
He laid the case before them, and asked their advice and assist-
ance. In answer Parliament passed the celebrated Habeas Cor-
pus Act. Since that day, no king of England has dared to
suspend the writ. It is only done by Parliament.

5. Governor Wall. In the year 1782, Joseph Wall, Governor
of the British colony at Goree, in Africa, had under his com-
mand about five hundred British soldiers. Suspecting that a
mutiny was about to break out in the garrison, he assembled
them on the parade-ground, held a hasty consultation with his
officers, and immediately ordered Benjamin Armstrong, a pri-
vate and supposed ringleader, to be seized, stripped, tied to
the wheel of an artillery carriage, and to receive eight hundred
lashes with a rope one inch in diameter. The order was carried
into execution, and Armstrong died of his injuries. Twenty
years afterward Governor Wall was brought before the most
august civil tribunal of England to answer for the murder of
Armstrong. Sir Archibald McDonald, Lord Chief Baron of
the Court pf Exchequer, Sir Souldcn Lawrence, of the King's
Bench, and Sir Giles Rooke, of the Common Pleas, constituted
the court. Wall's counsel claimed that he had the power of life
and death in his hands in time of mutiny; that the necessity of
the case warranted him in suspending the usual forms of law ;
that as governor and military commander-in-chief of the forces
at Goree, he was the sole judge of the necessities of the case.
After a patient hearing before that high court, he was found
guilty of murder, was sentenced, and executed.^

I now ask your attention to analogous precedents in our own
history.

I. On the I2th of June, 1775, General Gage, the commander
of the British forces, declared martial law in Boston. The

1 28 State Trials, p. 5^ ; see also Hough's Military Law, pp. 537-540.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS, i6i

battles of Concord and Lexington had been fought two months
before. The Colonial army was besieging the city and its Brit-
ish garrison. It was but five days before the battle of Bunker
Hill. Parliament had, in the previous February, declared the
Colonies in a state of rebellion. Yet, by the common consent
of English jurists. General Gage violated the laws of England,
and laid himself liable to its penalty, when he declared martial
law. This position is sustained, in the opinion of Mr. Justice
Woodbury, in Luther v, Borden et al}

2, On the 7th of November, 1775, Lord Dunmore declared
martial law throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. This
was long after the battle of Bunker Hill, and when war was
flaming throughout the Colonies; yet he was denounced by
the Virginia Assembly for having assumed a power which the
King himself dared not exercise, as it ** annuls the law of the
land, and introduces the most execrable of all systems, martial
law." Mr. Justice Woodbury declares^ the act of Lord Dun-
more unwarranted by British law.

3. The practice of our Revolutionary fathers on this subject
is most instructive. Their conduct throughout the great strug-
gle for independence was equally marked by respect for civil
law and jealousy of martial law. Indeed, it was one of the
leading grievances set forth in the Declaration of Independence,
that the King of Great Britain had ** affected to render the mil-
itary independent of, and superior to, the civil power " ; and
though Washington was clothed with almost dictatorial powers,
he did not presume to override the civil law, or disregard the
orders of the courts, except by express authority of Congress
or the States. In his file of general orders, covering a period
of five years, there are but four instances in which civilians
appear to have been tried by a military court, and all these
trials were expressly authorized by resolutions of Congress.

In the autumn of 1777. the gloomiest period of the war, a
powerful hostile army landed on the shore of Chesapeake Bay,
for the purpose of invading Maryland and Pennsylvania. It
was feared that the disloyal inhabitants along his line of march
would give such aid and information to the British commander
as to imperil the safety of our cause. Congress resolved " that

* 7 Howard, 48. For a history of the transaction, see Annual Register for

1775. P- '33-

* 7 Howard, 65.

VOL. I. If

1 62 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

the executive authorities of Pennsylvania and Maryland be re-
quested to cause all persons within their respective States, no-
toriously disaffected, to be forthwith apprehended, disarmed,
and secured till such time as the respective States think they
can be released without injury to the common cause," The
Governor of Pennsylvania authorized the arrests, and many dis-
loyal citizens were taken into custody by Washington's officers,
who refused to answer the writ of liabcas corpus which a civil
court issued for the release of the prisoners. Very soon after-
wards the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law indemnifying
the Governor and the military authorities, and allowing a simi-
lar course to be pursued thereafter, on recommendation of Con-
gress or the commanding officer of the army. But this law gave
authority only to arrest and hold, — not to try ; and the act was
to remain in force only till the end of the next session of the
General Assembly. So careful were our fathers to recognize
the supremacy of civil law, and to resist all pretensions of mar-
tial law to authority.

4. I pass next to notice an event that occurred under the
Confederation, before the Constitution was adopted. I refer to
Shays's Rebellion, in 1787, — that rebellion which was men-
tioned by Hamilton in the Federalist as a proof that we needed
a strong central government to preserve our liberties. During
all that disturbance there was no declaration of martial law, and
the habeas corpus was only suspended for a limited time and
with very careful restrictions. Governor Bowdoin's order to
General Lincoln, on the 19th of January, 1787, was in these
words : ** Consider yourself in all your military offensive opera-
tions constantly as under the direction of the civil officer, save
where any armed force shall appear to oppose your marching to
execute these orders."

5. I refer next to a case under the Constitution, the rebellion
of 1793 in Western Pennsylvania. President Washington did
not march with his troops until the judge of the United States
District Court had certified that the Marshal was unable to exe-
cute his warrants. Though the parties were tried for treason,
all the arrests were made by the authority of the civil officers.
The orders of the Secretary of War stated that ** the object of
the expedition was to assist the Marshal of the District to make
prisoners." Every movement was made under the direction of
the civil authorities. So anxious was Washington on this sub-

MILITAR y COMMISSIONS. 1 63

ject, that he gave his orders with the greatest care, and went in
person to see that they were carefully executed. He issued
orders declaring that ** the army should not consider themselves
as judges or executioners of the laws, but only as employed to
support the proper authorities in the execution of the laws.'*

6. I next refer to an incident connected with the Burr con-
spiracy, in 1807. The first developments of this plot were
exceedingly alarming. Reports were forwarded to President
Jefferson, and by him communicated confidentially to the Sen-
ate of the United States, with his recommendation that Congress
pass a law authorizing the suspension, for a limited period, of
the writ of habeas corf us. On the 26th of January, the Senate,
by a unanimous vote, passed a bill authorizing the suspension
of the writ for three months, in cases of persons who were
charged under oath with treason or misprision of treason. Thus
carefully limited and restricted, the bill was sent, under the seal
of secrecy, to the House of Representatives. When it was read,
the doors were immediately opened; a motion was made to
reject the bill, that it might not even reach its first reading;
and, after a very able debate of five days, it was rejected by a
vote of one hundred and thirteen to nineteen.

Not content, even, with that decided expression of sentiment,
two weeks later, on the 17th of February, a resolution was intro-
duced into the House ordering the Committee on the Judiciary
"to bring in a bill more thoroughly to protect the rights of
American citizens from arrest and imprisonment under color of
authority of the President of the United States." After a very
searching and able debate, it was concluded that existing laws
afforded ample protection ; but so anxious were the representa-
tives of the people to place the safety of the citizen beyond the
reach of doubt, that the resolution came within t\vo votes of
passing in the House. The vote stood 58 yeas to 60 nays; and
that, too, in the very midst of the threatened conspiracy.^

I will remark in this connection, that, though President Jef-
ferson recommended the passage of the act referred to, yet
in his correspondence he had previously expressed the opinion
that it was unwise, even in insurrection, to suspend the writ
of habeas corpus?

* The full history of this legislative action will be found in Benton's Abridgment
of Congressional Debates, Vol. III. pp. 504-542.
a Works, Vol. II. pp. 329, 355.

l64 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

So jealous were our people of any infringement of the rights
of the citizen to the privileges of the writ, that in the very
midst of the dangers at New Orleans General Wilkinson was
brought before a court there for having neglected promptly to
obey a writ of habeas corpus.

7. I call the attention of the court for a moment to the dis-
cussion in Congress in relation to the action of General Jack-
son, in 1 8 14, at New Orleans. It will be remembered that,
notwithstanding flagrant war was blazing around New Orleans
when the General declared martial law, yet it was held that he
had violated the sanctity of the courts, and he was fined ac-
cordingly.^ In 1842 a bill was introduced into Congress to
reimburse him for the fine. The debate was very able and
thorough. James Buchanan, then a member of Congress, spoke
in its favor, and no one will doubt his willingness to put the
conduct of Jackson on the most favorable ground possible. I
quote from his speech : —

" It had never been contended on this floor that a military commander
possessed the power, under the Constitution of the United States, to
declare martial law. No such principle had ever been asserted on this
(the Democratic) side of the House. He had then expressly declared
(and the published report of the debate, which he had recently exam-
ined, would justify him in this assertion) that we did not contend,
strictly speaking, that General Jackson had any constitutional right to
declare martial law at New Orleans ; but that, as this exercise of power
was the only means of saving the city from capture by the enemy, he
stood amply justified before his country for the act. We placed the
argument not upon the ground of strict constitutional right, but of such
an overruling necessity as left General Jackson no alternative between
the establishment of martial law and the sacrifice of New Orleans to the
rapine and lust of the British soldiery. On this ground Mr. B. had
planted himself firmly at the last session of Congress ; and here he in-
tended to remain." ^

All the leading members took the same ground. It was not
attempted to justify, but only to palliate and excuse the con-
duct of Jackson.

8. I call attention next to the opinions of our courts in re-
gard to martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus, and first read from the opinion of Chief Justice Mar-

1 For a full record of the law in the case, see 3 Martin's Lou. Rep., O. S., 530.
• Benton*s Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, Vol. XIV. p. 628.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 165

shall in Ex parte Bollman : " If at any time the public safety
should require the suspension of the powers vested .... in the
courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.
That question depends on political considerations, on which the
legislature is to decide. Until the legislative will be expressed,
the court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws." ^

I also cite the opinion of the late Chief Justice m Ex parte
Menyman,^ in which it was decided that the legislative au-
thority alone could suspend the writ of habeas corpus. This
decision was rendered in 1862, in the Maryland Circuit.

I shall conclude these citations from our own judicial history
by reading a few paragraphs from the opinion of Mr. Justice
Woodbury in Luther v, Borden et al? The passage loses none
of its force from the fact that it is part of a dissenting opinion ;
for the principles involved in it were not strictly in issue, nor
were they denied by the court. After stating his positions at
length, the learned justice says : —

" For convincing reasons like these, in every country which makes
•any claim to political or civil liberty, * martial law,' as here attempted,
and as once practised in England against her own people, has been
expressly forbidden there for near two centuries, as well as by the prin-
ciples of every other free constitutional govemment. (i HaJlam's
Const. Hist. 420.) And it would be not a little extraordinary if the
spirit of our institutions, both State and national, was not much stronger
than in England against the unlimited exercise of martial law over a
whole people, whether attempted by any chief magistrate or even by a
legislature

" My impression is that a state of war, whether foreign or domestic,
may exist, in the great perils of which it is competent, under its rights
and on principles of national law, for a commanding officer of troops
under the controlling govemment to extend certain rights of war, not
only over his camp, but its environs and the near field of his military
operations. (6 American Archives, 186.) But no further nor wider.
(Johnson v. Davis ct al., 3 Martin, 530, 551.) On this rested the justi-
fication of one of the great commanders of this country and of the age,
in a transaction so well known at New Orleans. But in civil strife they
are not to extend beyond the place where insurrection exists. (3 Mar-
tin, 551.) Nor to portions of the State remote from the scene of military
operations, nor after the resistance is over, nor to persons not con-
nected with it (Grant z\ Gould et al.y 2 H. Black. 69.) Nor even
within the scene can they extend to the person or property of citizens

' 4 Cranch, loi. ^ ^ American I^w Register, 524. ^ 7 Howard, i.

1 66 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

against whom no probable cause exists which may justify it (Sutton v,
Johnston, i D. & E. 549.)" ^

I cannot leave this branch of my argument without fortify-
ing my position by the authority of two of the greatest names
on the roll of British jurists. To enable me to do this, I call
attention to the celebrated trial of the Rev. John Smith, mis-
sionary at Demerara in British Guiana. In the year 1823 a
rebellion broke out in Demerara, extending over isome fifty
plantations. The governor of the district immediately declared
martial law. A number of the insurgents were killed, and the
rebellion was crushed. It was alleged that the Rev. John Smith,
a missionary sent out by the London Missionary Society, had
been an aider and abettor of the rebellion. A court-martial was
appointed, and, in order to give it the semblance of civil law,
the Governor-General appointed the chief justice of the district
as a staff officer, and then detailed him as president of the court
to try the accused. All the other members of the court were
military men, and he was made a military officer for the special
occasion. Missionary Smith was tried, found guilty, and sen-
tenced to be hung. The proceedings came to the notice of
Parliament, and were made the subject of inquiry and debate.
Smith died in prison before the day of execution, but the trial
gave rise to one of the ablest debates of the century, in which
the principles involved in the cause now before this court were
fully discussed. Lord Brougham and Sir James Mackintosh
were among the speakers. In the course of his speech. Lord
Brougham said : —

" No such thing as martial law is recognized in Great Britain, and

courts founded on proclamations of martial law are wholly unknown

Suppose I were ready to admit that, on the pressure of a great emer-
gency, such as invasion or rebellion, when there is no time for the slow
and cumbrous proceedings of the civil law, a proclamation may justifi-
ably be issued for excluding the ordinary tribunals, and directing that
offences should be tried by a military court, — such a proceeding might
be justified by necessity ; but it could rest on that alone. Created by
necessity, necessity must limit its continuance. It would be the worst of
all conceivable grievances, — it would be a calamity unspeakable, — if
the whole law and constitution of England were suspended one hour

longer than the most imperious necessity demanded I know that

the proclamation of martial law renders every man liable to be treated

^ 7 Howard, 62, 83, 84.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 167

as a soldier. But the instant the necessity ceases, that instant the state
of soldiership ought to cease, and the rights, with the relations, of civil
life to be restored:' ^

The speech of Sir James Mackintosh, who was perhaps the
very first English jurist of his day, is in itself a magazine of le-
gal learning, and treats so fully and exhaustively the subject of
martial law and military tribunals that I shall take the liberty of
quoting several passages. I do this with less hesitation because
I have found no argument so full and complete, and no author-
ity more perfectly applicable to the cause before this court.

" On the legality of the trial, sir, the impregnable speech of my learned
friend * has left me little if anything to say. The only principle on which
the law of England tolerates what is called ' martial law * is necessity ;
its introduction can be justified only by necessity ; its continuance re-
quires precisely the same justification of necessity ; and if it survives the
necessity, in which alone it rests, for a single minute, it becomes instantly
a mere exercise of lawless violence. When foreign invasion or civil war
renders it impossible for courts of law to sit, or to enforce the execution
of their judgments, it becomes necessary to find some rude substitute
for them, and to employ for that purpose the military, which is the only
remaining force in the community."

I desire to call particular attention to the sentences which lay
down the chief condition that can justify martial law, and also
mark the boundary between martial and civil law.

" While the laws are silenced by the noise of arms, the rulers of the
armed force must punish, as equitably as they can, those crimes which
threaten their own safety and that of society, but no longer ; — every
moment beyond is usurpation. As soon as the laws can act, every other
mode of punishing supposed crimes is itself an enormous crime. If
argument be not enough on this subject, — if, indeed, the mere state-
ment be not the evidence of its own truth, — I appeal to the highest
and most venerable authority known to our law."

He proceeds to quote Sir Matthew Hale on martial law, and
cites the case of the Earl of Lancaster, to which I have already
referred, and then declares : —

" No other doctrine has ever been maintained in this country since
the solemn Parliamentary condemnation of the usurpations of Charles I.,
which he was himself compelled to sanction in the Petition of Right.
In none of the revolutions or rebellions which have since occurred has

* Speeches of Henry, Lord Brougham, (Edinburgh, 1838,) Vol. 11. pp. 70, 71.

* Lord Brougham.

1 68 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

martial law been exercised, however much, in some of them, the neces-
sity might seem to exist. Even in those most deplorable of all commo-
tions which tore Ireland in pieces in the last years of the eighteenth
century, — in the midst of ferocious revolt and cruel ^punishment, — at
the very moment of legalizing these martial jurisdictions in 1799, ^^
very Irish statute which was passed for that purpose did homage to the
ancient and fundamental principles of the law in the very act of depart-
ing from them. The Irish statute, 39 George III., chap. 3, after reciting
* that martial law had been successfully exercised to the restoration of
peace, so far as to permit the course of the common law partially to
take place, but that the rebellion continued to rage in considerable parts
of the kingdom, whereby it has become necessary for Parliament to in-
terpose,' goes on to enable the Lord Lieutenant * to punish rebels by
courts-martial.* This statute is the most positive declaration that, where
the common law can be exercised in some parts of the country ^ martial law
cannot be established in others^ though rebellion actually prevails in those
others^ without an extraordinary interposition of the supreme legislative
authority itself . . .

" I have already quoted from Sir Matthew Hale his position respect-
ing the twofold operation of martial law ; — as it affects the army of the
power which exercises it, and as it acts against the army of the enemy.
That great judge, happily unused to standing aniiies, and reasonably
prejudiced against military jurisdiction, does not pursue his distinction
through all its consequences, and assigns a ground for the whole which
will support only one of its parts. * The necessity of order and discipline
in an army ' is, according to him, the reason why the law tolerates this
departure from its most valuable rules ; but this necessity only justifies
the exercise of martial law over the army of our own state. One part of
it has since been annually taken out of the common law and provided
for by the Mutiny Act, which subjects the military offences of soldiers
only to punishment by military courts even in time of peace. Hence we
may now be said annually to legalize military law ; which, however, dif-
fers essentially from martial law, in being confined to offences against
military discipline, and in not extending to any persons but those who
are members of the army. Martial law exercised against enemies or
rebels cannot depend on the same principle, for it is certainly not in-
tended to enforce or preserve discipline among them. It seems to me
to be only a more regular and convenient mode of exercising the right to
kill in war, — a right originating in self-defence, and limited to those
cases where such killing is necessary as the means of insuring that end.
Martial law put in force against rebels can only be excused as a mode of
more deliberately and equitably selecting the persons from whom quarter
ought to be withheld in a case where all have forfeited their claim to it.
It is nothing more than a sort of better regulated decimation, founded

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 169

upon choice, instead of chance, in order to provide for the safety of the
conquerors, without the horrors of undistinguished slaughter ; it is justi-
fiable only where it is an act of mercy. Thus the matter stands by the
law of nations. But by the law of England it cannot be exercised except
where the jurisdiction of courts of justice is interrupted by violence.
Did this necessity exist at Demerara, on the 13th of October, 1823?
Was it on that day impossible for the courts of law to try offences ? It
is clear that, if the case be tried by the law of England," and unless an
affirmative answer can be given to these questions of fact, the court-
martial had no legal power to try Mr. Smith."

After presenting arguments to show that a declaration of mar-
tial law was not necessary, the learned jurist continues : —

" For six weeks, then, before the court-martial was assembled, and for
twelve weeks before that court pronounced sentence of death on Mr.
Smith, all hostility liad ceased, no necessity for their existence can be
pretended, and every act which they did was an open and deliberate
defiance of the law of England.

Where, then, are we to look for any color of law in these proceedings ?
Do they derive it from the Dutch law ? I have diligentiy examined the
Roman law, which is the foundation of that system, and the writings of
those most eminent jurists who have contributed so much to the reputa-
tion of Holland. I can find in them no trace of any such principle as
martial law. Military law, indeed, is clearly defined ; and provision is
made for the punishment by military judges of the purely military offen-
ces of soldiers. But to any power of extending military jurisdiction over
those who are not soldiers, there is not an allusion. I will not furnish a
subject for the pleasantries of my right honorable friend, or tempt him
into a repetition of his former innumerable blunders, by naming the
greatest of these jurists ^ \ lest his date, his occupation, and his rank might
be again mistaken, and the venerable President of the Supreme Court
of Holland might be once more called a * clerk of the States General.'
* Persecutio militis,' says that learned person, * pertinet ad judicem mili-
tarem quando delictum sit militare, et ad judicem communem quando
delictum sit commune.' Far from supposing it to be possible that those
who were not soldiers could ever be triable by military courts for crimes
not military, he expressly declares the law and practice of the United
Provinces to be, that even soldiers are amenable, for ordinary offences
against society, to the court of Holland and Friesland, of which he was
long the chief. The law of Holland, therefore, does not justify this trial
by martial law.

''Nothing remains but some law of the colony itself. Where is it?

* Bynkershoek, of whose professional rank Mr. Canning had professed igno-
rance.

1 70 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

It is not alleged or alluded to in any part of this trial. We have heard
nothing of it this evening. So unwilling was I to believe that this court-
martial would dare to act without some pretence of legal authority, that I
suspected an authority for martial law would be dug out of some dark cor-
ner of a Guiana ordinance. I knew it was neither in the law of England
nor in that of Holland ; and I now believe that it does not exist even in
the law of Demerara. The silence of those who are interested in pro-
ducing it is not my only reason for this belief. I happen to have seen
the instructions of the States General to their Governor of Demerara, in
November, 1792, probably the last ever issued to such an officer by that
illustrious and memorable assembly. They speak at large of councils of
war, both for consultation and for judicature. They authorize these
councils to try the military offences of soldiers ; and therefore, by an in-
ference which is stronger than silence, authorize us to conclude that the
Governor had no power to subject those who were not soldiers to their
authority.

" The result, then, is, that the law of Holland does not allow what is
called * martial law * in any case ; and that the law of England does not
allow it without a necessity, which did not exist in the case of Mr. Smith.
If, then, martial law is not to be justified by the law of England, or by
the law of Holland, or by the law of Demerara, what is there to hinder
me from affirming, that the members of this pretended court had no more
right to try Mr. Smith than any other fifteen men on the face of the earth ;
that their acts were nullities, and their meeting a conspiracy ; that their
sentence was a direction to commit a crime ; that if it had been obeyed, it
would not have been an execution, but a murder ; and that they, and all
other parties engaged in it, must have answered for it with their lives ? " *

May it please the court, many more such precedents as I
have already cited might be added to the list, but it is unneces-
sary. They all teach the same lesson. They enable us to trace
from its far-off source the progress and development of An-
glo-Saxon liberty; its innumerable conflicts with irresponsible
power; its victories, dearly bought, but always won, — victories
which have crowned with immortal honors the institutions- of
England, and left their indelible impress upon the Anglo-Saxon
mind. These principles our fathers brought with them to the
New World, and guarded with sleepless vigilance and religious
devotion. In its darkest hour of trial, during the late Rebellion,
the republic did not forget them. So completely have they
been impressed on the minds of American lawyers, so thor-

1 Miscellaneous Works of the Rt. Hon. Sir James Mackintosh, (London, 1S51,)
pp. 734 et seq.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 7 1

oughly have they been ingrained into the very fibre of Ameri-
can character, that notwithstanding the citizens of eleven States
went off into wild rebellion, broke their oaths of allegiance to
the Constitution, and levied war against their country, yet, with
all their crimes upon them, there was still in the minds of those
men, during all the struggle, so deep and enduring an impres-
sion on this great subject that, even during their rebellion, the
courts of the Southern States adjudicated causes like the one
now before you in favor of the civil law and against courts-
martial established under military authority for the trial of citi-
zens. In Texas, Mississippi, Virginia, and other insurgent
States, by the order of the Rebel President, the writ of habeas
corpus was suspended, martial law was declared, and provost-
marshals were appointed to exercise military authority. But
when civilians, arrested by military authority, petitioned for re-
lease by writ of habeas corpus^ in every case save one the writ
was granted, and it was decided that there could be no suspen-
sion of the writ or declaration of martial law by the Executive,
or by any other than the supreme legislative authority. The
men who once stood high on the list of American lawyers, such
as Alexander H. Stephens, Albert Pike, and General Houston,
wrote letters and made speeches against the practice until it
was abandoned. In the year 1862, the commander-in-chief of
the Rebel armies, compelled by the force of public sentiment,
published a general order disclaiming any right or claim of
right to establish martial law or suspend the writ of habeas
corpus without the authority of the Rebel Congress.

I said there was one exceptional instance. A judge of the
Supreme Court of Texas, in the first excitement of the Rebel-
lion, refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus to release from
military arrest a citizen charged with disloyalty to the Rebel
government. He wrote his opinion, and delivered it; but he
was so much agitated when he found that he stood alone among
judges on that great question of human rights that he went to
the book of records in which his opinion was recorded, and
with his own hand plucked the leaves from the volume and
destroyed them. He also destroyed the original copy, that it
might never be put in type, and, having destroyed everything
but the remembrance of it, ended his life by suicide. I be-
lieve he alone among Rebel judges ventured to recognize mar-
tial law declared without legislative authority.

1 72 MIUTAR Y COMMISSIONS.

The spirit of liberty and law is well embodied in this one sen-
tence of De Lolme : " The arbitrary discretion of any man is
the law of tyrants : it is always unknown, it is different in dif-
ferent men, it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper,
and passion ; in the best it is oftentimes caprice, in the worst
it is every vice, folly, and passion to which human nature is
liable."^ And yet, if this military commission could legally
try these petitioners, its authority rested only upon the will of a
single man. If it had the right to try these petitioners, it had
the right to try any civilian in the United States ; it had the
right to try your Honors, for you are civilians.

The learned gentlemen tell us that necessity justifies martial
law. But what is the nature of that necessity. If, at this mo-
ment, Lee, with his Rebel army at one end of Pennsylvania Ave-
nue, and Grant, with the army of the Union at the other, with
hostile banners and roaring guns, were approaching this Capi-
tol, the sacred seat of justice and law, I have no doubt they
would expel your Honors from the bench, and the Senate and
House of Representatives from their halls. The jurisdiction
of battle would supersede the jurisdiction of law. This court
would be silenced by the thunders of war.

If an earthquake should shake the city of Washington, and
tumble this Capitol in ruins about us, it would drive your Hon-
ors from the bench, and, for the time, volcanic law would super-
sede the Constitution.

If the supreme court of Herculaneum or Pompeii had been
in session when the fiery ruin overwhelmed those cities, its au-
thority would have been suddenly usurped and overthrown ; but
I question the propriety of calling that law which, in its very
nature, is a destruction or suspension of all law.

From this review of the history and character of martial law
I am warranted, by the uniform precedents of English law for
many centuries, by the uniform practice of our fathers during
the Colonial and Revolutionary periods, by the unanimous de-
cisions of our courts under the Constitution, and by the teach-
ings of our statesmen, to conclude, —

I . That the Executive has no authority to suspend the writ of
/labeas corptis, or to declare or administer martial law ; much less
has any military subordinate of the Executive such authority ;

1 Rise and Progress of the English Constiturion, (London, 1838,) Vol. I.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 73

but these high functions belong exclusively to the supreme
legislative authority of the nation.

2. That if, in the presence of great and sudden danger, and un-
der the pressure of overwhelming necessity, the chief Executive
should, without legislative warrant, suspend the writ of habeas
corpus, or declare martial law, he must not look to the courts
for justification, but to the legislature for indemnification.

3. That no such necessity can be pleaded to justify the trial
of a civilian by a military tribunal, when the legally authorized
civil courts are open and unobstructed.

It will be observed that in this discussion I have not alluded
to the legal status of citizens of those States which were de-
clared, both by the legislative and executive departments of the
government, to be in rebellion against the United States. It has
been fully settled, not only by the other co-ordinate branches
of the government, but by this court, that those States consti-
tuted a belligerent government de facto, against which the Fed-
eral government might proceed with all the appliances of war,
and might extend absolute military jurisdiction over every foot
of rebel territory. But the military jurisdiction thus conferred
by the government did not extend beyond the territory of the
rebellious States, except where the tide of war actually swept
beyond those limits, and by its flaming presence made it im-
possible for the civil courts to exercise their functions. The
case before your Honors comes under neither of these condi-
tions ; hence, the laws of war are inapplicable to it.

The military commission, under our government, is of recent
origin. It was instituted by General Scott, in Mexico, to enable
him, in the absence of any civil authority, to punish Mexican
and American citizens for offences not provided for in the Rules
and Articles of War. The purpose and character of a military
commission may be seen from his celebrated Order No. 20, pub-
lished at Tampico. It was no tribunal with authority to punish,
but merely a committee appointed to examine an offender and
advise the commanding general what punishment to inflict.
It is a rude substitute for a court of justice in the absence of
civil law.

Even our own military authorities, who have given so much
prominence to these commissions, do not claim for them the
character of tribunals established by law. The Judge Advocate
General says: ** Military commissions have grown out of the

1 74 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

necessities of the service, but their powers have not been de-
fined, nor their mode of proceeding regulated by any statute

law In a military department the military commission

is a substitute for the ordinary State or United States court,
when the latter is closed by the exigencies of war, or is without the
jurisdiction of the offence committed." ^

The only ground on which the learned counsel attempt to
establish the authority of the military commission to try these
petitioners is that of the necessity of the case. I answer, there
was no such necessity. Neither the Constitution nor Congress
recognized it. I point to the Constitution as an arsenal stored
with ample powers to meet every emergency of national life.
No higher test of its completeness can be imagined than has
been afforded by the great Rebellion, which dissolved the mu-
nicipal governments of eleven States, and consolidated them
into a gigantic traitorous government de facto, inspired with the
desperate purpose of destroying the government of the United
States.

From the beginning of the Rebellion to its close, Congress, by
its legislation, kept pace with the necessities of the nation. In
sixteen carefully considered laws, the national legislature under-
took to provide for every contingency, and to arm the Execu-
tive at every point with the solemn sanction of law. Observe
how perfectly the case of the petitioners was covered by the
provisions of law.

The first charge against them was " conspiracy against the
government of the United States." In the act approved July
31, 1 86 1, that very crime was fully defined, and placed within
the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts of the United
States.

Charge 2 : " Affording aid and comfort to rebels against the
government of the United States." In the act approved July
17, 1862, this crime is set forth in the very words of the charge,
and it is provided that " such person shall be punished by im-
prisonment for a period not exceeding ten years ; or by a fine
not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all
his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at
the discretion of the court."

Charge 3: "Inciting insurrection." In Brightly's Digest ^
there is compiled from ten separate acts a chapter of sixty-four

1 Digest of Opinions for 1866, pp. 131, 133. 2 Vol. II. pp. 191-202.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 75

sections on insurrection, setting forth, in the fullest manner pos-
sible, every mode by which citizens may aid in insurrection, and
providing for their trial and punishment by the regularly or-
dained courts of the United States.

Charge 4: " Disloyal practices." The meanjng of this charge
can only be found in the specifications under it, which consist
in discouraging enlistments and making preparations to resist a
draft designed to increase the army of the United States. These
offences are fully defined in the thirty-third section of the act
of March 3, 1863, " for Enrolling and Calling out the National
Forces," and in the twelfth section of the act of February 24,
1864, amendatory thereof. The provost-marshal is authorized
to arrest such offenders, but he must deliver them over for trial
to the civil authorities. Their trial and punishment are ex-
pressly placed in the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit
Courts of the United States.

Charge 5 : ** Violations of the laws of war," — which, according
to the specifications, consisted of an attempt, through a secret
organization, to give aid and comfort to rebels. This crime is
amply provided for in the laws referred to in relation to the
second charge. But Congress did far more than to provide for
a case like this. Throughout the eleven rebellious States it
clothed the military department with supreme power and au-
thority. State constitutions and laws, the decrees and edicts of
courts, were all superseded by the laws of war. Even in States
not in rebellion, but where treason had a foothold, and hostile
collisions were likely to occur. Congress authorized the suspen-
sion of the writ of habeas corpus, and directed the army to keep
the peace.

But Congress went further still, and authorized the President,
during the Rebellion, whenever, in his judgment, the public
safety should require it, to suspend the privilege of the writ of
Jiahcas corpus in any State or Territory of the United States, and
order the arrest of any persons whom he might believe danger-
ous to the safety of the republic, and hold them till the civil
authorities could examine into the nature of their crimes. But
this act of March 3, 1863, gave no authority to try the person
by any military tribunal, and it commanded judges of the Cir-
cuit and District Courts of the United States, whenever the
grand jury had adjourned its sessions, and found no indictment
against such persons, to order their immediate discharge from

176 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

arrest. All these capacious powers were conferred upon the
military department, but there is no law on the statute-book in
which the tribunal that tried the petitioners can find the least
recognition.

I wish to call the attention of your Honors to a circumstance
showing the sentiment on this subject of the House of Repre-
sentatives of the Thirty-eighth Congress. Near the close of that
Congress, when the Miscellaneous Appropriation Bill, which au-
thorized the disbursement of several millions of dollars for the
civil expenditures of the government, was under discussion, the
House of Representatives, having observed with alarm the grow-
ing tendency to break down the barriers of law, and desiring to
protect the rights of citizens as well as to preserve the Union,
added to the appropriation bill the following section: ^^ And
be it further enacted, That no person shall be tried by court-
martial or military commission in any State or Territory where
the courts of the United States are open, except persons actually
mustered or commissioned or appointed in the military or naval
service of the United States, or rebel enemies charged with being
spies."

The Section was debated at length in the Senate, and, although
almost every Senator acknowledged its justice, yet, as the nation
was then in the very mid-whirl and fury of the war, it was feared
that the Executive might thereby be crippled, and the section
was stricken out. The bill came back to the House ; conferences
were held upon it, and finally, in the last hour of the session, the
House deliberately determined that, important as the bill was to
the interests of the country, they preferred it should not become
a law if that section were stricken out. I beg leave to read some
passages from the remarks of one of the noblest, ablest, and
most patriotic men that have honored this nation during the
war, — that great man, so lately taken from us, Henry Winter
Davis, of Maryland. After reporting the provisions of the bill
agreed upon by the committee of conference, he said : —

" Under these circumstances it remained for a majority of the House
committee to determine between the great result of losing an important
appropriation bill, or, after having raised a question of this magnitude,
touching so nearly the right of every citizen to his personal liberty and
the very endurance of republican institutions, and to insure its prompt
consideration fastened it on an appropriation bill, to allow it to be stricken
out of the bill as a matter of secondary importance. The committee

MILITARY COMMISSIONS, i;;

thought that their duty to their constituents, to the House, and to them-
selves, would not allow them to provide for any pecuniary appropriations
at the expense of so grave a reflection upon the fundamental principles
of the government

" The practice of the government has introduced into the jurispnidencc
of the United States principles unknown to the laws of the United States,
loosely described under the general term of the rules and usages of icuir,
and new crimes, defined by no law, called * military offences * ; and with-
out the authority of any statute, constitutional or unconstitutional, and
pointing these laws — confined by the usage of the world to enemies
in enemies' territory — against our own citizens in our own territory, has
repeatedly deprived many citizens of the United States of tlieir lil)erty,
has condemned many to death, who have only been redeemed from
that extreme penalty by the kindness of the President's heart, and aided
doubdess by the serious scruples he cannot but feel touching the legality
of the judgment that assigned them to death.

" There have been many cases in which judgments of confinement in
the penitentiary have been inflicted for acts not punishable, either under
the usages of war or under any statute of the United States, by any mili-
tary tribunal ; crimes for which the laws of the United States prescribe
the punishment have been visited with other and severer punishments by
mUitary tribunals ; violations of contract with the government, real or im-
puted, have been construed by these tribunals into frauds, and punished
as crimes ; excessive bail has been demanded, and when furnished im-
pudently refused ; and the attempt of Congress to discriminate between
crimes committed by persons in the military forces and citizens not in
those forces, has been annulled, and the very oficnccs it specifically re-
quired to be tried before the courts of the United States have been tried
before military tribunals dependent upon the will of the President

" The committee remember that such things are inconsistent with tiie
endurance of republican government. The party which tolerates or
defends them must destroy itself or the republic. They felt they had
reached a point at which a vote must be cast which may break up j)oliti-
cal parties, or, if it do not, will break up or save a great republican
government. Before these alternatives they could not hesitate. They
thought it best, now, at this time, to leave this law standing as a broken
dike in the midst of the rising flood of lawless power around us, to show
to this generation how high that flood of lawless power has risen in only
three years of civil war, as a warning to those who arc to come after us,
as an awakening to those who are now with us.

"They have, therefore, come to the determination, so far as the con-
stitudonal pri\ilcges and prerogatives of this House will enable them to
accomplish the result, that this bill shall not Ixjcome a law if these words
do not stand as a part of it, — the affirmation by the representatives of

VOL. I. 13

!•*

1 78 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

the States and of the people of the inalienable birthright of every Ameri-
can citizen ; and on that question they appeal from the judgment of the
Senate to the judgment of the American people." '

The appeal was taken ; the bill failed ; and the record of its
failure is an emphatic declaration that the House of Represent-
atives have never consented to the establishment of any tribu-
nals except those authorized by the Constitution of the United
States and the laws of Congress.

There was one point, suggested rather than insisted upon by
the opposing counsel, which it requires but little more than
a statement to answer. In their brief, the learned gentlemen
say that, if the military tribunal had no jurisdiction, the peti-
tioners may be held as prisoners captured in war, and handed
over by the military to the civil authorities, to be tried for
their crimes under the acts of Congress, and before the courts
of the United States. The answer to this is, that the peti-
tioners were never enlisted, commissioned, or mustered in the
service of the Confederacy ; nor had they been within the Rebel
lines, or within any theatre of active military operations ; nor
had they been in any way recognized by the Rebel authori-
ties as in their service. They could not have been exchanged
as prisoners of war ; nor, if all the charges against them were
true, could they be brought under the legal definitioo of spies.
There appears to be no ground whatever for calling them pris-
oners of war. The suggestion of our opponents, that the peti-
tioners should be handed over to the civil authorities for trial,
is precisely what they petitioned for, and what, according to
the laws of Congress, should have been done. We do not ask
that they shall be shielded from any lawful punishment, but
that they shall not be unlawfully punished, as they now are, by
the sentence of a tribunal which had no jurisdiction over cither
their persons or the subject-matter of the charges.

The only color of authority for such a trial was found in the
President's proclamation of September 24th, 1862, which was
substantially annulled by the Habeas Corpus Act of March 3d,
1863, and the subsequent Presidential proclamation of Septem-
ber iSth, 1863. By these acts, the military authority could
only arrest and hold disaffected persons till after a session of
the United States District Court.

May it please the court, I have thus reviewed the principles

* Congressional Globe, March 3, 1865, pp. 1421, 1422.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 79

upon which our government was founded, the practice of the
fathers who founded it, and the almost unanimous sentiment of
its presidents, congresses, and courts.

I have shown that Congress undertook to provide for all the
nece^ities which the Rebellion imposed upon the nation ; that it
provided for the trial of every crime imputed to the petitioners,
and pointed out expressly the mode of punishment. There is
not a single charge or specification in the petition before you, —
not a single allegation of crime, — that is not expressly pro-
vided for in the laws of the United States ; and the courts arc
designated before which such offenders may be tried. These
courts were open during the trial, and had never been disturbed
by the Rebellion. The military Commission on the tenth day
of its session withdrew from the room where it had been sitting,
that the Circuit Court of the United States might hold its regu-
lar term in its own chamber. For the next ten days the Commis-
sion occupied, by permission, the chamber of the Supreme Court
of the State of Indfana, but removed to another hall when the
regular term of that court began. This military Commission sat
at a place two hundred miles beyond the sound of a hostile gun,
in a State that had never felt the touch of martial law, — that had
never been defiled by the tread of a hostile Rebel foot, except
on a remote border, and then but for a day. That State, with all
its laws and courts, with all its securities of personal rights and
privileges, is declared by the opposing counsel to have been com-
pletely and absolutely under the control of martial law; that not
only the Constitution and laws of Indiana, but the Constitution
and laws of the United States, were wholly suspended, so that
no writ, injunction, prohibition, or mandate of any District or
Circuit Court of the United States, or even of this august tribu-
nal, was of any binding force or authority whatever, except by
the permission and at the pleasure of a military commander.

Such a doctrine, may it please the court, is too monstrous to
be tolerated for a moment; and I trust and believe that, when
this cause shall have been heard and considered, it will receive
its just and final condemnation. Your decision will mark an era
in American history. The just and final settlement of this great
question will take a high place among the great achievements
which have immortalized this decade. It will establish forever
this truth, of inestimable value to us and to mankind, that a
republic can wield the vast enginery of war without breaking

l8o MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

down the safeguards of liberty; can suppress insurrection, and
put down rebellion, however formidable, without destroying the
bulwarks of law; can, by the might of its armed millions, pre-
serve and defend both nationality and liberty. Victories on the
field were of priceless value, for they plucked the life of tjie re-
public out of the hands of its enemies ; but

*• Peace hath her victories
No less renowned than war,**

and if the protection of law shall, by your decision, be extended
over every acre of our peaceful territory, you will have rendered
the great decision of the century.

When Pericles had made Greece immortal in arts and arms,
in liberty and law, he invoked the genius of Phidias to devise a
monument which should symbolize the beauty and glory of
Athens. That artist selected for his theme the tutelar divinity
of Athens, the Jove-born goddess, protectress of arts and arms,
of industry and law, who typified the Greek conception of com-
posed, majestic, unrelenting force. He erected on the heights
of the Acropolis a colossal statue of Minerva, armed with spear
and helmet, which towered in awful majesty above the sur-
rounding temples of the gods. Sailors on far-off ships beheld
the crest and spear of the goddess, and bowed with reverent
awe. To every Greek she was the symbol of power and glory.
But the Acropolis, with its temples and statues, is now a heap
of ruins. The visible gods have vanished in the clearer light of
modern civilization. We cannot restore the decayed emblems
of ancient Greece ; but it is in your power, O Judges, to erect
in this citadel of our liberties a monument more lasting than
brass, — invisible indeed to the eye of flesh, but visible to the
eye of the spirit as the awful form and figure of Justice, crown-
ing and adorning the republic ; rising above the storms of polit-
ical strife, above the din of battle, above the earthquake shock
of rebellion; seen from afar, and hailed as protector by the
oppressed of all nations ; dispensing equal blessings, and cover-
ing with the protecting shield of law the weakest, the humblest,
the meanest, and, until declared by solemn law unworthy of
protection, the guiltiest of its citizens.

At the, second session of the Thirty-eighth Congress, a resolution was
adopted, directing the Military Committee to " inquire and report to the
House what legislation or action, if any, is necessary to secure to persons

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. i8i

arrested and imprisoned by military authority a prompt examination into
the causes of the arrest, and their discharge if there be no adequate
cause for their detention, and a speedy trial where there is such cause.'*
Upon a motion to reconsider this resolution, January i8, 1865, M^"-
Garfield said : —

I WISH to make two observations. First of all, I agree with
what the gentleman from Maryland ^ has just said; and in illus-
tration of what I desire to say, I call attention to a bill that
passed the House last session, but did not pass the Senate, and
which, in my judgment, is vitally important as a means to pre-
serve the independence of the officers of our armies. Early in
the war, it will be remembered, Congress, for good reasons,
gave to the President the power of summary dismissal when he
believed the public service would be subserved thereby. At
that time the army was full of traitors, and it was necessary that
by a more summary process than court-martial they should be
driven out

But it was thought last winter by the House of Representa-
tives, that the danger had so far passed that we might safely
repeal the law. Important as that law has been in some re-
spects,— and none will doubt its value and necessity at the time
of its enactment, — I am satisfied that in other respects it has
had a very unfortunate influence. It has gone very far toward
weakening the manliness and independence of the officers in the
army. If, sir, I am in the army, and know that my superior
officer can make such representations as will cause me to be
dismissed without a hearing and without a trial, how strong is
the tendency of that knowledge to make me a timid, subservient
tool ! The whole tendency of it is to take away the personal
independence and manliness of the subordinate officer, because
he has no guard for his standing and position except the favor
of his superior, — no right to demand, as the American officer
always had in former times, that he should be speedily and
fairly tried by a jury of his peers. For this reason we passed
a bill last winter, by a very large majority, — almost unani-
mously, I believe, — to repeal the law giving this power to the
President. That bill is dying a lingering death at the other
end of the Capitol. I believe that the bill ought to become

a law.

I desire, in the second place, to call attention to the fact that

it is now the law, and has been since the foundation of our gov-

1 Mr. Davis.

1 82 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

ernment, that when an officer of the army is arrested for any-
supposed crime or misdemeanor, he shall be held in arrest — it
may be in close confinement and under guard, according to the
enormity of the supposed offence — no longer than eight days
without being furnished with a copy of the charges against him.
The law also allows him a speedy trial.

Now, without trenching upon the business in which the Com-
mittee on Military Affairs was engaged this morning, I will say
that one officer at least has been in confinement for five months
within sight of this Capitol. Both he and his keeper declare
that he has- not been furnished with a copy of the charges
against him. He says tliat he has again and again demanded
in vain to know with what crime he was charged. He is a man
who bears upon his person honorable scars received in the ser-
vice of his country ; he is a colonel ; and the vengeance of some
one fell upon him, like a bolt from a clear sky. He declares
that he knows no reason for it and can learn none. An agent
of the War Department, an officer unknown to the laws and
Constitution of the country, lays his hand upon a man, puts
him in prison, where he is kept until said agent, or some power
above him, is pleased to release him. There are plenty of al-
leged cases where officers and citizens, after being confined for
a long period, have been allowed to go out without a word of
explanation concerning either the arrest or the discharge.

I ask the House of Representatives whether that kind of prac-
tice is to grow up under this government, and no man is to raise
his voice against it, or make any inquiry concerning it, lest
some one should say he is factious, unfriendly to the War De-
partment, and opposing the Administration. Gentlemen, if we
are not men in our places here, let us stop our ears to all com-
plaints ; let every department do as it pleases ; and in meekness
and in silence let us vote whatever appropriations are asked
for. I do not say, for I do not know, that the head of any
department is responsible for these things, or knows them. It
may be they have been done by subordinates. It may be the
heads of departments are not cognizant of the facts. I make
no accusations ; but I do say, that it is our business to see that
the laws be respected, and that if a man has no powerful friend
in court he shall at least find the Congress of the United States
his friend. I hope the resolution will not be reconsidered.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE

PAYMENTS.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

March i6, 1866.

In the Thirty-eighth Congress, Mr. Garfield was a member of the
Committee on Military Affairs ; in the Thirty-ninth, he was transferred,
at his own request, to the Committee of Ways and Means. This transfer
marks a period in his mental history, and in the history of his public
life. Now began his services in the field of economical discussion and
legislation. " The Public Debt and Specie Payments " was the first of
his Congressional speeches on this class of subjects. From this time on,
he bore a prominent part in the discussion of loans, banks, taxation, tariff,
paper money, and resumption, as these questions came before Congress
and the country. As many of these questions were but phases of one
great question — as they grew out of the same general facts — it will be
well here to set those facts down once for all : — i. The enormous ex-
penditures of the war. 2. The imposition of heavy taxation. 3. The
creation of a great public debt. 4. The abandonment of specie pay-
ments, and the issue by the national Treasury of legal-tender paper
money. 5. The national banks, the creation of which involved the
destruction of the old State banks of issue, and the assertion of exclusive
jurisdiction over bank-note issues on the part of the general government.
6. The over-issue and consequent depreciation of the currency.

The legal-tender notes and the national banks were new fiscal instru-
ments to the American people. Of the two acts creating them, the
Legal Tender Act was by far the more radical and dangerous measure.
It involved a complete reversal of the national policy, since from the day
that the Constitution went into effect gold and silver had constituted the
sole tenders for debt. This reversal of policy was justified at the time
by alleging, (i.) That the government could not maintain specie pay-
ments through the war, but must use a cheaper money ; and (2.) That
Congress had the constitutional power, in time of war, to make paper a

1 84 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PA YMENTS,

legal tender. Let it be noted that this power was expressly called a war
power. Not only was the power thus limited, but it was held that, when
the war was over, it would be the duty of the government to return to
coin payments at the earliest practicable moment. The paper promises
of the government — whether bonds or legal- tender notes — must then
be redeemed in coin.

The war over, the President, Secretary of the Treasury, and others
who remembered and respected the promises of 1862 and 1863, thought
that steps should immediately be taken in the direction of resumption.
March 3, 1865, an act was approved which authorized the funding in
six-per-cent gold bonds of the interest-bearing obligations of the govern-
ment. At the opening of the next session, a more decided step was
proposed; viz. to fund its non-interest-bearing obligations. February i,
1866, a bill was reported from the Committee of Ways and Means that,
after amendment, read thus : —

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act entitled
* An Act to provide ways and means to support the government,* ap-
proved March 3, 1865, shall be extended and construed to authorize the
Secretary of the Treasury, at his discretion, to receive any Treasury notes
or other obligations, issued under any act of Congress, whether bearing
interest or not, in exchange for any description of bonds authorized by
the act to which this is an amendment ; and also to dispose of any de-
scription of bonds authorized by said act, either in the United States or
elsewhere, to such an amount, in such manner, and at such rates as he
may think advisable, for lawful money of the United States, or for any
Treasury notes, certificates of indebtedness, or certificates of deposit, or
other representatives of value, which have been or which may be issued
under any act of Congress, the proceeds thereof to be used for retiring
Treasury notes or other obligations issued under any act of Congress ;
but nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize any in-
crease of the public debt : Pnnnded^ That the act to which this is an
amendment shall continue in full force in all its provisions, except as
modified by this act."

This was a contractive measure. Its authors and defenders desired as
early a return to specie payments as was practicable ; and they held that
this end could not be reached \vithout reducing the volume of the cur-
rency. Hence it was a proposition to fund greenbacks, as well as to
provide for other obligations of the government as they should mature.
It was opposed on various grounds, but mainly because, as was held, it
would disturb the business of the country. Mr. McCulloch, Secretary
of the Treasury, was known to be a resumption ist and a contractionist ;
and it was well known that he would use whatever power the law gave
him to carry out his ideas. The bill failed in the House, but was re-

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS, 185

considered and recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means. It
came back to the House, with certain important restrictions and limita-
tions. In the new form the bill passed both Houses, and was approved,
April 12, 1866. This proviso was the most important of the new features
of the bill : " Provided^ That of United States notes not more than ten
million of dollars may be retired and cancelled within six months from
the passage of this act, and thereafter not more than four million of
doll2urs in any one month."

" Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more
effectual than that which deludes them with [irredeemable] paper money." — Danisl Webster.

MR. SPEAKER, — After the long and spirited contest on
this bill, I shall do little beyond making as plain a state-
ment as I can of the great financial problem now before the
country for solution. The bill relates to two leading points in
that problem, viz. : —

1. To our indebtedness that shall accrue from time to time in
the course of the next three years.

2. To our currency and its relation to the standard of value.
I shall notice these in the order that I have named them.
Several gentlemen have said, in the progress of this debate,

that what might have been a very proper financial measure in
time of war might be a very dangerous and unnecessary one
in time of peace ; that the vast powers proposed to be given to
the Secretary of the Treasury in this bill are powers justifiable
only in time of great public danger, as in the late war.

Now I beg to remind gentlemen that the financial problems
before this country are becoming greater since the war than
they were during its continuance. In the midst of the war,
when the blood of the nation was up, — when patriotism was
aroused, and the people were determined to put down the
Rebellion and preserve the republic at all hazards, — when the
last man and the last dollar were oft'ered a willing sacrifice, — it
was comparatively easy to pass financial bills and raise millions
of money. But now, when wc are to gather up all the pledges
and promises of four terrible years, and redeem them out of the
solid resources of the people in time of peace, the problem is
far more difficult. To solve it successfully requires greater
exertion, and perhaps even greater financial ability, than would
be requisite were the war still raging.

1 86 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

What is the amount of indebtedness to be met, and when
must it be met? To this question I invite the careful and
earnest attention of the House. I shall give the official state-
ment of the amount of our total indebtedness, and also of that
portion soon to become due. The amount of our public debt
on the first day of this month was $2,7ii,850,ocx). Less than
half of this amount is funded. Within the next three years
$i,6oo,CX»,CX» of this debt will fall due, and will be presented
at the counter of the Treasury Department for payment. That
payment must be promptly made, or our paper goes to protest
and our credit is broken. I hold in my hand an official table
showing the amount of our indebtedness that matures during
each half-year for the next two years, from which, after a word
of explanation, I will read.

There was on the last day of February, 1 866, a portion of
our debt in the form of a temporary loan to the amount of
$ii9»33S>i94-SO> payable at the option of the lender after ten
days' notice- It would hardly be fair to reckon that whole
amount as payable within the first six months, yet as it may be
called for at any time, and is to the nation the least desirable
form of loan, it must be added to the statement of indebtedness
soon to be met. With this explanation, and supposing the
payment of this loan to be demanded within the next six
months, I call attention to the facts exhibited in the table.

Between this and the 30th of June next, we must pay,
in addition to the regular expenditure of the government,
$138,674,874.82. During the six months ending December 31,
1866, we must pay $47,665,000. During the six months ending
June 30, 1867, we must pay $8,471,000. During the six months
ending December 31, 1867, we must pay $350,000,000. During
the six months ending June 30, 1868, we must pay $369,415,250.
During the six months ending December 31, 1868, we must pay
$287,564,482. So that between this and the assembling of the
next Congress there must be paid over the counter of the
Treasury, besides the ordinary expenses of the government,
$1,201,790,606.82.

I am sure that every member of this House acknowledges
that this is a sacred obligation, every dollar of which must be
promptly met the day it is due. I take it for granted that no
man here will consent that a single dollar of it shall go to pro-
test, or that any act of this House shall bear the least taint or

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. 187

color of repudiation. We must, therefore, meet these obliga-
tions. How can it be done?

Mr. Spaulding. Does not this amount of indebtedness include the
seven-thirty bonds for which the government may issue five-twenty
bonds?

My colleague is correct Most of the seven-thirty bonds are
included in this amount, but they must be redeemed in money
or five-twenty bonds at the holder's option. The Secretary has
no power to compel an exchange.

As I have already stated, there will be presented for payment
in some form before the assembling of the Fortieth Congress
$1,201,000,000, in addition to the ordinary expenditures of the
government How are these demands to be met? With what
power is the Secretary of the Treasury clothed to enable him
to meet this enormous obligation?

There are two clauses in the existing laws which give him
some power.

The first and chief is found in the last clause of the first sec-
tion of the act of the 3d of March, 1865, which has been so
ably discussed by my colleague on the committee.^ He has
shown us — and no man, I believe, will venture to deny the
correctness of the position — that the clause gives the Sec-
retary of the Treasury power merely to exchange one kind of
paper for another, but only with the consent of the holder. If
the holder says, ** I will not take your long bonds, I demand
my money," his money he must have. If, when the seven-
thirty bond is due, the state of the market makes money more
valuable than a six-pcr-cent bond for twenty years, the holder
will of course demand money. He will of course take the
option most profitable to himself and least advantageous to the
government.

The other clause is found in the act of June 30, 1864.
The second section of that act allows the Secretary of the
Treasury to take up the various kinds of paper representing
indebtedness, and issue therefor compound-interest notes or
seven-thirty bonds. These two descriptions of paper are of all
others the most expensive for the government to issue. I say,
then, concerning this power, it is one that the Secretary ought
not to use. It would be a calamity should he be compelled to

^ Mr. Allison, of Iowa.

1 88 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

use it. It would be a calamity, in the first place, were he
compelled to issue in exchange for maturing indebtedness these
compound-interest notes, for they are the most costly paper
the government can issue to its creditors, — notes that are pay-
able in three years with interest compounded every six months.
It is enough to break the financial strength of any nation.
Again, by the provisions of this act the Secretary may issue
seven-thirty bonds in exchange for matured indebtedness.
They are short bonds. They now fill the market more than
any others, and will be maturing after about twelve months. If
we pay these out, it will be only for the purpose of taking up
others of the same kind. Even this can be done only at the
option of the holder.

I say, therefore, that the Secretary is substantially limited in
his power to these two clauses of the law : one that he ought
not to use, and cannot use without great disadvantage to the
public credit; and the other that he can use only for the pur-
pose of an even exchange, and that, too, by the consent of
the holders. Therefore he has but little power or discretion in
funding the national debt. If Congress gives him no more
power, the Treasury will be at the mercy of the public creditors,
who may combine to control the stock market, and compel the
Secretary to sacrifice the public credit to the gamblers of Wall
Street. I hold it demonstrable that, if you leave the Secretary
of the Treasury where he is, you abandon him to the mercy of
the holders of the public securities, who, if they please, can
utterly break him down, and send the paper of the government
to protest.

Under these circumstances, it was the duty of the Committee
of Ways and Means to inquire what further power was neces-
sary to enable the Secretary to meet these obligations as they
mature, and put the debt into the form of long bonds at a lower
rate of interest than we now pay. The committee believe that
the bill now before the House gives the Secretary no more
power than is needful for the accomplishment of the work be-
fore him. With that power the Secretary believes he can do
the work. Without it he cannot.

If the plan now proposed be not adopted, it is incumbent upon
this House to offer one that will accomplish the work. It is not
enough that gentlemen are able to point out defects in this bill,
and raise objections to it; but it is incumbent upon them to

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. 189

show us a plan which will acccomplish the desired result and
not be liable to equally grave objections.

Now, sir, what has been proposed as a substitute for this bill ?
The distingruished gentleman from Pennsylvania^ has offered a
substitute. I hope no one misunderstands his purpose. He is
not only opposed to the pending bill, but he is unwilling to give
the Secretary any additional power. He is not only unwilling
to give the Secretary additional power, but he desires to take
away much of the power already granted. His substitute con-
sists of the committee's bill, with every vital provision cut out,
and the following disabling section added : " Sec. 2. That all
laws or parts of laws which authorize the Secretary of the Treas-
ury to fund or withdraw from circulation any United States legal-
tender notes not bearing interest be, and the same are hereby,
repealed." If this substitute shall become a law, I desire it to
be remembered that the House must take the responsibility of
the disastrous results which may follow. I have undertaken to
state the first great duty which rests upon the Secretary of the
Treasury; namely, to meet the maturing indebtedness of the
government. Before leaving the first point, however, let me
say that the committee have not been willing to leave the Secre-
tary merely the barren power of exchanging one form of paper
for another, bond for bond, dollar for dollar, and that only at
the option of the holder. It is proposed in this bill that he be
permitted to put a loan on the market, to sell bonds for money,
and with that money redeem the old bonds as they mature.
Even if we had no desire to limit the volume of paper currency,
it would be necessary to give him this power for the purpose of
funding the debt.

But I hasten to the consideration of the currency. I call
attention to the fact that Congress has established a policy,
which is now nearly four years old, in reference to the circulat-
ing medium of the country. Five years ago there were in the
United States over sixteen hundred banks, based on any and
every kind of security, and issuing currency in such amounts
as were authorized by the laws of the various States. The notes
of one bank were based on real estate ; of another, on State
stock ; of another, on United States stock. Each had its pecu-
liar basis, its peculiar kind of currency, and regulated the amount
of its circulation according to its own rules and opinions. Six-

1 Mr. Stevens.

I90 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PA YMENTS.

teen hundred independent corporations were tinkering at the cur-
rency. The result was, that a paper dollar in Ohio, though worth
one hundred cents in gold at home, would pass for only ninety
or ninety-five cents in California or Massachusetts. A Massa-
chusetts dollar would fare equally hard in California. A paper
dollar was worth its face in gold only in the immediate locality
of its issue.

In the progress of the war against the rebellion, there was
adopted a system of national banks based on a uniform security,
— the bonds of the United States, — so that a paper dollar is-
sued in Ohio is worth no less when it reaches Massachusetts.
It was not, however, thought prudent by the Thirty-seventh and
Thirty-eighth Congresses to make the United States govern-
ment a banker for the people, with arbitrary power to regulate
the currency as it pleased. It was thought to be dangerous to
repeat the history of the United States Bank of thirty years ago ;
and therefore it was resolved that a national bank system, based
on the bonds of the United States, and regulated by the ne-
cessities of trade, should be the established policy of the gov-
ernment. The greenback currency was issued only as a war
measure, to last during the necessities of the war, then to be
withdrawn, and give place to the national bank currency.

The war is now ended ; and unless we mean to abolish the
national bank system, and make the government itself a per-
manent banker, we must retire from the banking business, and
give place to the system already adopted. Unless gentlemen
are now ready to abandon entirely the national bank system,
they must consent that ultimately the greenback circulation
shall be withdrawn, and that the notes of the national banks
shall furnish a paper currency which, together with gold, shall
constitute the circulating medium of the country. The com-
mittee have proceeded on the belief that the national bank sys-
tem is to be the permanent system of this country, and that the
greenback circulation was only incidental to the necessities of
war, and that with the removal of these necessities it was to be
withdrawn.

Shall we return to specie payments? and if so, when and
how? The President, in his late annual message, has expressed
clearly and determinedly the purpose of the executive depart-
ment of the government td return at the earliest practicable
moment to the solid basis of gold and silver. The Secretary of

TJStE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS, 191

thq Treasury in his report sets forth, with very great clear-
ness and ability, the importance of an early return to specie
payments. And this House, on the i8th of December last,
with but six dissenting votes, not only declared itself in favor
of returning as speedily as practicable to a specie basis, but
also declared that the currency must be contracted as a means
of resumption.

Now, how shall this be accomplished ? By what lever can the
financial machinery be so moved as to effect the object so much
desired by every department of the government? I answer,
that the only lever in our hands strong enough to lift the burden
and overcome every obstacle is our power over the greenback
and fractional currency. In the first place, they constitute
$450,000,000 of the volume of the currency. In the second
place, they underlie the national bank system, and constitute
the reserves required by law.

It has been said in this debate, that the circulation is not
redundant; that we have now no more paper money than the
business of the country requires; that the rate of interest is
high, the money market stringent, and prices greatly advanced.
I hold it demonstrable that our redundant currency is the chief
cause of the high prices and the stringent money market.

I know that figures are not always the best index of the finan-
cial situation. If they were, I might show that less than three
hundred million dollars furnished the circulation of this country
before the war, and that now we have more than a tliousanrl
million. I need only refer to the hornbooks of financial sci-
ence to show that the only sure test of the redundancy of paj)cr
money is its convertibility into coin at the will of the holder,
and that its redundancy will inevitably increase prices. On the
latter proposition I will read a sentence from the highest livin^j
authority in political economy, John Stuart Mill: ** That an in-
crease of the quantity of money raises prices, and a diminution
lowers them, is the most elementary proposition in the theory
of currency, and without it we should have no key to any of
the others." *

Mjl Prjce. I want to ask the gentleman from Ohio whether there is
any more ojrrency in circulation now than six months ago. In short, I
want to know whether there has not been more currency in circubfion
every day of the week, and ever>' week of the month, for the last six

> Political Economy, Vol- II p. i5 /Boston, 1843^.

192 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS,

months, — and has it not been increasing? I want to know whether
it is not equally true, that gold has been coming down steadily, certainly,
gradually, surely ; and not only that, but that the commodities of trade
and commerce have come down in the same ratio. Yet the currency
has been increasing, strange as it may seem. And the gentleman need
not go back to the hornbooks to find out these facts. They stare us in
the face every day. It cannot be denied that, while the currency has
been increasing, gold has been going down.

A paragraph from the Merchants' Magazine for January last
will perfectly answer the gentleman's question. It is to this
effect: the President's Message raised government securities
at home and abroad, and depressed gold. The report of the
Secretary of the Treasury accomplished still more. The very
announcement of the policy of resumption has checked gold
and stock gambling and brought down prices. That historical
fact is a complete answer to the gentleman's question. Besides,
sir, it must be remembered that six hundred millions of Rebel
currency collapsed and disappeared on the day the so-called
Southern Confederacy collapsed, and thus left a vacuum into
which our currency has since been flowing.

I call attention, because the gentleman from Pennsylvania^
has referred to it, to a remarkable example in British finan-
cial history. I have never seen a more perfect illustration of
the truth that history repeats itself, than this debate as com-
pared with the debate in the British Parliament during their
great struggle for a return to specie payments after the war
against Napoleon. From 1797 to 1819 the British people had
only a paper circulation, and, as is always the case, the poorer
currency drove out the better. As respectable people leave
that portion of a city in which disreputable people settle, so
gold retires before an irredeemable paper currency. If our
customs and the interest on our public debt had not been made
payable in coin, gold would have disappeared from the country.
In England, when they had no gold in circulation, when prices
had risen, when rents had risen, after stocks had fallen, English-
men did what we are now attempting to do.

In 1 810 a committee of the ablest financiers and statesmen
was ordered to report the cause of high prices and the premium
upon gold, and after a laborious investigation, during which the
most distinguished men were called in as witnesses, that most

^ Mr. Stevens.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS, 193

able paper, the Bullion Report, was submitted to Parliament.
In that report the principle was enunciated that the only true
test of the redundancy of currency is its comparison in value
with gold; that whenever a paper dollar is not exchangeable
for a gold dollar, it is proof that there are too many paper dol-
lars; and there can be no surer test. In the report of that
committee it was laid down as a fundamental proposition, that
nothing but the supreme test of gold applied to paper will
certainly determine the question of redundancy. That report
was debated for many weeks, and every leading banker, broker,
importer, and jobber of England opposed the Bullion Com-
mittee and the proposed return to cash payments. The meas-
ure was defeated. Gold and prices immediately rose. From
181 1 to 1819 there was a steady rise in prices and stocks; and
in the year 18 19 another committee of the House of Commons
was appointed to examine and report on the financial situation
of the kingdom. Three members of the Bullion Committee of
1810 were also on the committee of 18 19. After a most search-
ing investigation, they reported in favor of resumption, and
indorsed the doctrines of the Bullion Report.

Then it was that Sir Robert Peel distinguished himself as
the great statesman and financier of England by declaring in
the House of Commons his conversion to the doctrines of the
Bullion Report, which he had so strenuously opposed eight
years before. I have before me the records of the great debate
in which that illustrious man lamented that the distinguished
author of the Bullion Report of 181 1 ^ was not then alive to
aid him in that struggle, and witness the triumph of those prin-
ciples so clearly set forth in 181 1. Eight years of terrible ex-
perience had demonstrated the truth of the Bullion Report.
** Sir," said Peel, ** \vc shall never have financial security in this
country until we adopt the principles of that report " ; and after
a Parliamentary struggle, the report of which fills nearly five
hundred pages of Mansard's Debates, the report was adopted,
and its principles have ever since been the acknowledged creed
of Great Britain and of all other countries whose people have
carefully studied the subject. I refer to this, sir, as a matter of
history, and I further assert that there is no respectable author-
ity on the subject of finance, on the other side of the water or
here, that denies the doctrine that the only true test of redun-

1 Francis Horner.
VOL. I. 13

1 94 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

dancy of currency is its convertibility into gold. You may
bring your figures to prove that we have no more currency
than our trade requires; but I tell you that so long as your
paper dollar cannot be converted into gold, there is too much
currency, and the moment it can be converted into gold for its
face, it has reached a stable and safe basis.

Now, if any gentleman here has the temerity to deny this
doctrine, I shall be pleased to hear his reasons for it. To make
his denial good, he must prove that the immutable laws of value
have been overthrown. He cannot plead that the necessities of
trade alone control the value of currency. Double the amount
of currency, and the money market will be apparently more
stringent ; triple the amount, and money will be more stringent
still. Why .do we need four times as much money now to
move the products of the country as was needed five years
ago? Simply because the inflation of the currency has quad-
rupled prices and deranged values.

But the worst feature in the case is the stimulus which this
inflation gives to dishonesty everywhere, and the consequent
discouragement of productive industry. I will not now ques-
tion the policy of the act of 1862, by which paper money was
made a legal tender. It was perhaps a necessity of the war
that could not have been avoided. But no one will deny that it
unsettled the basis of all values in this country. It was a decla-
ration by law that a promise to pay a dollar might be dis-
charged by paying a sum less than a dollar. There was a
time within the last two years when an obligation to pay one
hundred dollars could be legally cancelled by the payment of
thirty-eight dollars. The manifold evils resulting from such a
state of things cannot be computed. To fulfil in January the
contract of July may ruin the creditor, because the meaning of
the most important word in the contract has been changed by
the changing market. The dollar of July may have represented
forty cents, while the dollar of January may represent double
that sum.

Will prudent men embark in solid business, and risk all they
possess to such uncertain chances? There is left open the
alluring temptation to speculate on the rise and fall of gold,
stocks, and commodities, a pursuit in which all that is gained by
one is lost by another, and no addition is made to the public
wealth. And this is the history of thousands of our business

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. 195

men. They have trusted their capital to the desperate chances
of Wall Street. They have embarked on the sea of paper
money, and they ask us to keep the flood rising that they may
float Every day adds stimulus to this insane gambling, and
depresses legitimate business and honest labor. The tide must
be checked, and the fury of the flood restrained. Wc must
bring values back to the solid standard of gold. Let that be
done, and the fabric of business is founded, not on the sand, but
on the firm rock of public faith. The fury of the storm tore us
from our moorings, and left us to the mercy of the waves. Let
us pilot the good ship again into port, so that we may once
more feel the solid earth beneath our feet.

How perfectly prices have kept pace with the currency let
the history of the last five years show. Name any one year in
which the currency has been more inflated than in the preced-
ing, with no prospect of contraction, and you will find prices
proportionately advanced. I hold in my hand the price list of
the last four years, as published in the Merchants* Magazine.
Take, for example, the average price of flour. In January,
1861, it was $5.35 per barrel; in 1862, it was $5.50; in 1863,
$6.05; in 1864, it was $7; in 1865, $10. The prices kept in \

exact proportion to the volume of the currency. Now, in Jan-
uary, 1866, after the President, the Secretary of the Treasury,
and Congress had made a decided movement toward specie
payments, and indicated their purpose to restore the old stan-
dard of value, the price dropped to $8.75 per barrel, as the
average for the month. Take any one of the sixty-three
articles on this market list, and it will exhibit the same truth,
that an expanded currency produces high prices. British and
French history, as well as our own, give the same testimony on
this subject. I do not, of course, suppose that resumption will
bring us down to old prices. Heavy taxes and the increased
product of gold will hold prices higher than they were before
the war.

I cannot leave this point without citing the great authority of
Daniel Webster on the subject of irredeemable paper money.
I quote from his speech of May 25, 1832, on the Bank of the
United States : — :

"A sound currency is an essential and indispensable security for the
fruits of industry and honest enteq:)rise. Every man of property or in-
dustry, every man who desires to preserve what he honestly possesses, or

/

196 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

to obtain what he can honestly earn, has a direct interest in maintaining
a safe circulating medium ; such a medium as shall be a real and sub-
stantial representative of property, not liable to vibrate with opinions,
not subject to be blown up or blown down by the breath of speculation,
but made stable and secure by its immediate relation to that which the
whole world regards as of a permanent value. A disordered currency is
one of the greatest of political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary
for the support of the social system, and encourages propensities destruc-
tive of its happiness. It wars against industry, frugality, and economy ;
and it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. Of all the
contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been
more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This
is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the
sweat of the poor man's brow. Ordinary t}Tanny, oppression, excessive
taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the commu-
nity, compared with a fraudulent currency and the robberies committed
by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction
enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the in-
justice, and the intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well disposed,
of a degraded paper currency authorized by law, or in any way counte-
nanced by government." ^

Resumption is not so difficult a work as many suppose. It
did not take so long in England as the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania^ stated in his speech this afternoon. In July, 1819, Par-
liament decreed that after February i, 1820, the Bank should
begin to redeem in small quantities, and should increase the
amount at stated periods until May, 1823, when full specie pay-
ment should be made. The Bank contracted its circulation,
reduced the price of gold, and fully resumed payments. May i,
1 82 1, only fifteen months after the law went into operation. I
should be sorry to see a sudden contraction of our currency
and a rapid decline in gold. It would be too great a shock to
business. But if the Secretary is armed with the requisite power,
he can make the movement so steadily and gradually as not to
disturb, to any dangerous degree, the course of business and
trade.

The chief objection urged against the pending bill is that it
confers too much power, — more than ought to be intrusted to
any man. Now, sir, a tremendous power was given to General
Grant, when the lives of hundreds of thousands of men were
placed absolutely at his disposal. Sherman was intrusted with

1 Works of Daniel Webster, Vol. III. pp. 394, 395. 2 Mr. Stevens.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PA YMENTS, 197

vast power when he started with his great army on his march
to the sea. But it was necessary to trust some one with that
power. Congress could not command armies and plan cam-
paigns. So also, in the present emergency, some one must be
trusted with power. Congress cannot negotiate a loan, cannot
regulate the details of the currency, or fund the debt. It must
delegate the power. I will not eulogize the present Secretary
of the Treasury ; he needs no eulogy from me. It is the Sec-
retary of the Treasury, not Hugh McCuUoch, who needs this
power. I vote to give it to the incumbent of that high office,
whoever he may be, and hold him responsible for the use he
may make of it.

I repeat it, sir, if gentlemen do not approve this bill, they
should offer some other plan that will accomplish the desired
result

[Here Mr. Garfield turned aside from the direct line of his argument
to discuss the question of the States taxing the national bonds. As the
subject of taxing the bonds is much more fully discussed in the speech
of July 15, 1868, that branch of his argument is here omitted.]

The gentleman from Pennsylvania ^ tells us he is in favor of
returning to specie payments when it can be done without dis-
turbing or deranging the business of the country. If he waits
for that, it can never be done. It cannot be done without first
contracting the currency and producing a temporary stringency
in the money market. If we have not the nerve to do that, if
we have not patriotism to suffer that temporary inconvenience,
we must go on in the swift road to financial disaster and ultimate
national bankruptcy.

The gentleman says we must reach specie payments by pro-
tection. He says, if we protect our manufactures we shall keep
gold from going abroad. This is not his first attempt to regu-
late the value and movement of gold by legislation. After a
few days' trial, his law of 1864 for that purpose was repealed.
I do not oppose protection. I am in favor of protecting the
sanctity of contracts by bringing all values back to the basis of
a uniform standard. Then our iron mills will not stand idle,
as they now do, because of the risk occasioned by the violent
fluctuation of prices.

Mr. Speaker, this is our only remedy. I have faith in the

^ Mr. Stevens.

198 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

Secretary of the Treasury that he will, by and by, with as little
disturbance to business as possible, bring us to specie pay-
ments. We have travelled more than one quarter of the way
since Congress met. Gold was then 148, now it is 130. Mercury
in the barometer is not more sensitive to atmospheric influences
than is the gold market to the legislation of Congress. Witness
the following paragraph from the financial column of a recent
New York daily: "Wall Street is more animated to-day in
consequence of the report, which is extensively believed, that
all loan bills will be made conducive to inflation, and that the
temper of Congress is hostile to all measures looking toward
contraction of the greenback currency. This is interpreted
to be favorable to higher prices, and is already producing its
effects in stimulating speculation." Defeat this bill and there
will be a jubilee in Wall Street. This House must take the
responsibility.

•

The bill having been lost ofi the i6th of March by a small majority,
Mr. Garfield changed his vote so as to enable him to move to reconsider,
which motion was sustained by the House on the 19th. Before moving
the previous question, Mr. Garfield said : —

Mr. Speaker, — Every gentleman in this House must admit
that, during the short time given to the committee this morn-
ing, a full hearing has been given to two of the ablest gentle-
men who oppose this measure, and I presume their views could
not have been more strongly stated in the same length of time
than they have just been stated by the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts.^ But I wish to call his attention and that of the House
to the fact that, in the discussion of the bill, he has raised an
issue aside from the question. He has undertaken to antagonize
the policy of the Secretary of the Treasury with the business
interests of the country, and has told us that we are putting in
the hands of the Secretary a power which may be used against
the industry and honest labor of the country.

We propose, sir, to put power into his hands to be used
against those financial gamblers who would break down the
public credit, and thus injure the most important interests of
the country. I would be the last man to cast a vote that could
oppress the manufacturer, or any other producer of wealth, and

1 Mr. Boutwell.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PA YMENTS. 199

I believe that the honorable Secretary asks for power, not to
oppress, but to encourage industry. But I ask gentlemen
whether they have considered where he will be left in case we
do not give him the power he now asks. Why does he ask it?
The President of the United States declared a financial policy,
which has been more fully elaborated by the Secretary, and we
are now asked to give him power to carry out that policy ; but
gentlemen hesitate, because it may bring a temporary pressure
upon the business of the country.

The gentleman has stated the amount of currency that might
be withdrawn under the provisions of this bill, and says if the
whole were withdrawn it would cause a disastrous collapse. He
has forgotten that there is nearly $300,000,000 of gold and
silver in this country which will flow into the circulation as the
gfreenback currency is retired. He has also forgotten that we
are now producing over $100,000,000 in gold and silver every
year from our mines. He has omitted these very considera-
ble sums, which changes entirely the conditions of the problem
before us.

Mr. Stevens. From what data does the gentleman undertake to say
that there is ^300,000,000 in gold now in this country ready for circula-
tion?

I base my estimate on the opinion of those who have given
the subject careful attention, and also upon the condition of our
foreign exchanges. The gentleman is aware that exchange for
gold with all nations is now in our favor, and that cannot be
unless we have a very considerable quantity of gold in the
country.

Mr. Stevens. I have seen no record of over $70,000,000.

There are $57,000,000 in the Treasury now, besides what is
deposited in banks and in private coffers. Beside this, it must be
remembered that gold is now the currency of the Pacific States.
But the fact that foreign exchange is in our favor is an indubi-
table proof that we have a large supply of specie.

Mr. Kelley. Will the gentleman permit a single brief question?
Is not the inflowing volume of gold a return for bonds, rather than for
produce of any kind, raw or manufactured ?

That does not alter the fact. By whatever means it comes,
we have the gold, and the supply is increasing, and will increase'
so long as we pursue the policy of resumption.

200 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PA YMENTS.

And now, once for all, I desire to say, before leaving this
subject, that neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means intends or desires that there shall be
a rapid contraction of the currency; there is no purpose of
that kind. Already, in anticipation of the measure now under
discussion, gold is falling even more rapidly than is desirable.
I am sorry to see it move downward so fast as it does. And
the Secretary of the Treasury, if he could, would make its de-
cline more gradual.

Mr. Speaker, the question is, will we give the Secretary of
the Treasury the power to initiate the policy of contraction of
the currency, as the House indicated so decisively on the i8th
of December last?^ What other policy has been suggested?
A policy has been suggested by the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania ^ in a bill he introduced this morning. That bill author-
izes the Secretary of the Treasury to take up short bonds as
they mature, and issue greenbacks in payment. If it should be
adopted, $1,000,000,000 of greenbacks would be issued in the
next eighteen months. I have upon my desk a pamphlet
written by a citizen of Pennsylvania signing himself " Patriot,'*
who recommends the immediate issue of $1,000,000,000 of
greenbacks, and believes it would put the country in a healthy
condition for business ! This enthusiastic pamphleteer rises
to the sublime, if not to the blasphemous, and declares, as the
sum of his financial wisdom, that next to the immortal God
paper money is the greatest and most beneficent power on this
earth. This " Patriot " will be delighted with the biM of his
distinguished representative.

Mr. Speaker, there is no leading financier, no leading states-
man, now living, or who has lived within the last half-cen-
tury, in whose opinion the gentleman can find any support.
They all declare, as the Secretary of the Treasury declares, that
the only honest basis of value is a currency redeemable in
specie at the will of the holder. I am an advocate of paper
money, but that paper money must represent what it promises
on its face. I do not wish to hold in my hands the printed lies

1 The reference is to this resolution, adopted at that time : "Resolved, That this
House cordially concurs in the views of the Secretary of the Treasury in relation
to the necessity of a contraction of the currency with a view to as early a resump-
.tion of specie payments as the business interests of the country will permit; and
we hereby pledge co-operative action to this end as rapidly as practicable."

-2 Mr. Kclley.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. 20I

of the government; I want its promise to pay, signed by the
high officers of the government, sacredly kept, in the exact
meaning of the words of the promise. Let us not continue to
practise this conjurer's art, by which sixty cents shall discharge
a debt of one hundred cents. I do not want industry every-
-where to be thus crippled and wounded, and its wounds plas-
tered over with legally authorized lies.

A bill was introduced into the House expressing the wishes
of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Committee of Ways
and Means reduced its proportions, and struck out several pro-
visions that they believed could safely be spared. They struck
out tho foreign loan clause, and restricted the power conferred
by it till the Secretary declares that with any less power he shall
be unable to fund our indebtedness and manage our finances.

I propose, sir, to let the House take the responsibility of
adopting or rejecting this measure. On the one side, it is pro-
posed to return to solid and honest values; on the other, to
float on the boundless and shoreless sea of paper money, with
all its dishonesty and broken pledges. We leave it to the
House to decide which alternative it will choose. Choose the
one, and you float away into an unknown sea of paper money,
that shall know no decrease until you take just such a measure as
is now proposed to bring us back again to solid values. Delay
this measure, and it will cost the country dear. Adopt it now,
and with a little depression in business and a little stringency
in the money market the worst will be over, and we shall have
reached the solid earth. Sooner or later such a measure must
be adopted. Go on as you are now going on, and a financial
crisis worse than that of 1837 ^^ill bring us to the bottom.
For one I am unwilling that my name shall be linked to the
fate of a paper currency. I believe that any party which com-
mits itself to paper money will go down amid the general dis-
aster, covered with the curses of a ruined people.

Mr. Speaker, I remember that on the monument of Queen
Elizabeth, where her glories were recited and her honors
summed up, among the last and the highest, recorded as the
climax of all her achievements, was this, — that she had restored
the money of her kingdom to its just value. And when this
House shall have done its work, when it shall have brought back
values to their proper standard, it also will deserve a monu-
ment.

THE MEMORY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

April 14, 1866.

On motion of Mr. Garfield, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was
dispensed with. He then said : —

MR. SPEAKER, — I desire to move that this House do
now adjourn. And before the vote upon that motion is
taken I desire to say a few words.

This day, Mr. Speaker, will be sadly memorable so long as
this nation shall endure, which God grant may be ** till the last
syllable of recorded time," when the volume of human history
shall be sealed up and delivered to the Omnipotent Judge. In
all future time, on the recurrence of this day, I doubt not that
the citizens of this republic will meet in solemn assembly to
reflect on the life and character of Abraham Lincoln, and the
awful, tragic event of April 14, 1865, — an event unparalleled
in the history of nations, certainly unparalleled in our o'.vn. It
is eminently proper that this House should this day place upon
its records a memorial of that event.

The last five years hav6 been marked by wonderful develop-
ments of individual character. Thousands of our people, before
unknown to fame, have taken their places in history, crowned
with immortal honors. In thousands of humble homes arc
dwelling heroes and patriots whose names shall never die. But
greatest among all these great developments were the character
and fame of Abraham Lincoln, whose loss the nation still de-
plores. His character is aptly described in the words of Eng-
land's great Laureate, — written thirty years ago, — in which
he traces the upward steps of

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 203

** Some divinely gifted man,
Whose life in low estate began
And on a simple village green ;

** Who breaks his birth's invidious bar,
And grasps the skirts of happy chance,
And breasts the blows of circumstance,
And grapples with his evil star ;

** Who makes by force his merit known
And lives to clutch the golden keys,
To mould a mighty State's decrees,
And shape the whisper of the throne ;

** And, moving up from high to higher,
Becomes on Fortune's crowning slope
The pillar of a people's hope,
The centre of a world's desire.**

Such a life and character will be treasured forever as the
sacred possession of the American people and of mankind.

In the great drama of the rebellion there were two acts. The
first was the war, with its battles and sieges, its victories and de-
feats, its sufferings and tears. That act w^as closing one year ago
to-night, and, just as the curtain was lifting on the second and
final act, the restoration of peace and liberty, — just as the cur-
tain was rising upon new characters and new events, — the evil
spirit of the rebellion, in the fury of despair, nerved and directed
the hand of an assassin to strike down the chief character in
both. It was no one man who killed Abraham Lincoln ; it was
the embodied spirit of Treason and Slavery, inspired with fearful
and despairing hate, that struck him down, in the moment of the
nation's suprcmcst joy.

Sir, there are times in the history of men and nations, when
they stand so near the veil that separates mortals from the im-
mortals, time from eternity, and men from their God, that they
can almost hear the beatings and feel the pulsations of the heart
of the Infinite. Through such a time has this nation passed.
When two hundred and fifty thousand brave spirits passed from
the field of honor, through that thin veil, to the presence of
God, and when at last its parting folds admitted the martyr
President to the company of these dead heroes of the republic,
the nation stood so near the veil that the whispers of God were
heard by the children of men. Awestricken by His voice, the
American people knelt in tearful reverence and made a solemn

204 ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

covenant with Him and with each other, that this nation should
be saved from its enemies, that all its glories should be restored,
and, on the ruins of slavery and treason, the temples of freedom
and justice should be built, and should survive forever.

It remains for us, consecrated by that great event, and under
a covenant with God, to keep that faith, to go forward in the
great work until it shall be completed. Following the lead of
that great man, and obeying the high behests of God, let us
remember that

** He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat ;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat;
O, be swift, my soul, to answer Him ! be jubilant, my feet 1
Our God is marching on."

I move, sir, that this House do now adjourn.

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

July io, 1866.

The Morrill Tariff, enacted at the close of the Congressional session
of 1860-61, greatly increased the duties on imported goods. This legis-
lation was had partly to fill the depleted national treasury, but more
especially to give protection to American industry. It marked a definite
triumph of the protective principle. Subsidiary to this act, other legis-
lation of the same general character was had from time to time, reaching
to the close of the war. Now, it was said, there was a call for still higher
protection. Accordingly, June 25, 1866, Mr. J. S. Morrill, the author of
the former measure, now the chainiian of the Committee of Ways and
Means, reported fi'om that committee a bill to provide increased revenue
fix)m imports, and for other purposes. The " other purposes " were
greater protection. In vindicating the measure, Mr. Morrill said, June 28,
that the war had greatly deranged the industrial and fiscal economy of
the country. Immense masses of wealth had been destroyed, the pro-
ducing power of the country much reduced, new industrial adjustments
had been made, a vast debt had been created, and heavy burdens of
taxation incurred. Nothing but heavier duties on imports would furnish
the needed revenue, and enable American labor to comj)ete with foreign
labor. Mr. Garfield, who was a member of the Committee of Ways and
Means, bore a prominent part in the discussion of the bill. This, his
principal speech, was delivered on July 10, just before the vote was taken.
In it he discusses for the most part general doctrines ; his views on
specific points must be sought in his briefer remarks and in his votes.
In the House the bill was carried ; in the Senate it was referred to the
Finance Committee, and postponed to the next session. Then it came
back to the House, greatly changed, where it finally failed to pass.

MR. SPEAKER, — At this late hour of the session, and after
the protracted discussion in which so many gentlemen
have engaged, I would not further trespass upon the patience

206 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

of the House but for the fact that this bill has been so gravely
misrepresented here, and so unjustly assailed from without.
There has been raised against it no small clamor for iniquities
which it does not contain, and for omissions which have not
been made.

This is not the time to enter into any elaborate discussion of
those general principles which underlie the most complicated
of financial subjects, the trade between the United States and
other nations. The abstract theories of free trade and protec-
tion, as laid down in the books, can be of little practical value
in the consideration of this bill. The disciples of either school
would be puzzled to apply their doctrines to the present situa-
tion of our trade and commerce, as has been strikingly illus-
trated during the progress of this debate. There is scarcely
a free-trader on this floor who has not, since this discussion
began, in order to secure a higher duty on some product in
which his constituents were interested, made use of arguments
which met the hearty approval of the most extreme protection-
ists; and, on the other hand, when these same protectionists
have been desirous of bringing into the country some article
important to their people, we have heard them again and again
defend their propositions by declarations which would bring
down thunders of applause from an audience of free- trade
leaguers.

There are two extremes of opinion in this House and in the
country to which I cannot assent. During the past year I have
been frequently solicited to subscribe publicly to the dogmas of
various organizations based on opposite and extreme doctrines
in relation to our financial policy ; but I have steadily declined
to do so, partly for the reason that I could not assent to all their
articles of faith, and partly because I preferred to approach the
questions on which we were to legislate untrammelled by any
abstract theory, which, although apparently sound, might be
impracticable when applied to the facts of our situation. I
would not be misunderstood ; nor for any political advantage
to myself personally would I allow my constituents to suppose
that I indorsed any doctrines which, though they should be
pleasing to many of them, do not meet my own convictions of
truth and duty.

If to be a protectionist is to adopt the practice which char-
acterized the legislation of Great Britain and the leadings nations

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866. 207

of Europe for more than two hundred years, and which is now
commended to us by some of our political philosophers and
statesmen, then I am no protectionist, and shall never be one.
If to be a protectionist is to base our legislation upon the policy
which led the Parliament of Great Britain, from the days of
Elizabeth to the days of Charles II., to forbid the exportation
of sheep and wool from the kingdom, under penalty of confisca-
tion and imprisonment for the first offence, and torture and
death for the second; which led the same Parliament in 1678 to
pass a law entitled " An Act for the encouragement of woollen
manufactures," that ordered every corpse to be buried in a
woollen shroud ; which led the Lord Chancellor to declare the
necessity of going to war with Holland because the commerce
of the Dutch was surpassing that of Great Britain ; which led
the diplomatists of England to insist on an article in the treaty
of Utrecht of 171 3, in accordance with which the finest harbor
in Northern Europe was filled up and hopelessly ruined, lest
by its aid the trade of France should eclipse that of England ;
which tortured industry in every imaginable way, and ignored all
the great laws of value, of exchange, and of industrial growth ;
which cost England her North American colonics, and plunged
Europe into more wars during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries than all other causes combined ; — if to be a protec-
tionist means this, or anything fairly akin to this, then, I repeat,
I am no protectionist. That policy, softened down in its out-
ward manifestations, but essentially the same in spirit, is urged
upon us now by those who would have us place so high a duty
upon foreign merchandise as to prohibit the importation of any
article which this country produces or can produce. By so
doing, besides placing ourselves in an attitude of perpetual hos-
tility to other nations, and greatly reducing our carrying trade,
we should make monopolists of all the leading manufacturers of
this country, who could fix the price of all their products at
their own discretion.

If, on the other hand, we should adopt the theories of the
radical free-traders, and declare that our tariff shall be all for
revenue and nothing for protection, — and particularly, were we
to put that doctrine in practice at such a time as in 1836, when
we had no debt and a large surplus in the treasury to be given
away, — no one can fail to see that we should break down the
dikes which our predecessors had erected for the defence of

2o8 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

American industry, — should destroy or seriously cripple our
manufactures, which produce nearly one half the annual income
of our people (for the manufactured products of this country in
i860 were valued at $1,900,000,000), — should revolutionize our
industrial system, and place ourselves at the mercy of foreign
manufacturers. If to be a free-trader means all this, and pledges
us to let the competition of the world come in upon our people,
and thus to disjoint and derange the industrial system of the
United States, then I am no free-trader, and can never be.

One of the worst features in our industrial system is the
irregularity and uncertainty of the legislation in reference to the
tariff. It subjects the business of manufacturing to the uncer-
tainty of a lottery. If the prohibitionists succeed one year, the
profits of manufacturers are enormous; if, as is quite probable,
the reaction of the next year puts free-traders in power, the
losses are equally great. Let either of these parties frame the
tariff, and the result will be calamitous in the highest degree.

What, then, is the point of stable equilibrium, where we can
balance these great industries with the most reasonable hope of
permanence ? We have seen that one extreme school of econo-
mists would place the price of all manufactured articles in the
hands of foreign producers, by rendering it impossible for our
manufacturers to compete with them ; while the other extreme
school, by making it impossible for the foreigner to sell his
competing wares in our market, would leave no check upon the
prices which our manufacturers might fix upon their products.
I hold, therefore, that a properly adjusted competition between
home and foreign products is the best gauge by which to regu-
late international trade. Duties should be so high that our
manufacturers can fairly compete with the foreign product, but
not so high as to enable them to drive out the foreign article,
enjoy a monopoly of the trade, and regulate the price as they
please. To this extent I am a protectionist. If our govern-
ment pursues this line of policy steadily, we shall year by year
approach more nearly to the basis of free trade, because we
shall be more nearly able to compete with other nations on
equal terms. I am for a protection which leads to ultimate free
trade. I am for that free trade which can be achieved only
through protection.

I desire to call attention briefly to some of the fallacies and
misrepresentations by which this bill has been assailed. In the

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866. 209

first place, it has been stated again and again that this is a New
England measure, and repeated attempts have been made to
arouse sectional jealousy based on that allegation. I affirm
that this is not a New England measure, but that, more than
any tariff ever framed by Congress, it protects and aids the ag-
ricultural interests of the country. If there has ever been an
agricultural tariff, this is one.

Look at its provisions on the subject of wools. It is proposed
to increase the duty on foreign competing wools from six cents
per pound to ten cents per pound, and ten per cent ad valorem^
making the total tariff about eleven and a half cents per pound.
It takes two pounds of the mestiza wool of South America to
equal one pound of our American wool. It is, therefore, a pro-
tection of twenty-three cents per pound on American wools of
the finer qualities, which comprise the great bulk of our wool.
Now, there is grown in the United States one hundred million
pounds of wool per annum ; and yet the gentleman from Iowa ^
tells us that, in consequence of the peculiarity of the climate
and soil of South America, we can never compete with that
country in the production of wool. In the same short speech
the gentleman confuted himself by declaring that wool-growing
was so profitable in Iowa that it did not need protection.

Mr. Kasson. I beg leave to correct the gentleman. I said dis-
tinctly that, in the West, on the prairies and on the plains, where land is
cheap, grass abundant, and the winters mild, we should ultimately be
able to compete with the world.

Then what becomes of his praise of the superior advantages
of South America? I did not so understand the gentleman.
Now, sir, I am surprised that any Representative from the State
of Ohio, where we have six million sheep and where we raise one
fifth of all the wool in the United States, should be found to
oppose this measure as being framed in the interest of New
England.

Let me notice another agricultural feature of the bill. There
are fifty ships trading constantly with Calcutta, bringing India
flaxseed to our shores. In order to encourage the home
growth, we have raised the duty on flaxseed from sixteen to
thirty cents per bushel, and on linseed oil from twenty-three to
thirty cents per gallon ; yet gentlemen say this is a bill for New

^ Mr. Kasson.
VOL. I. 14

210 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

England. If there be any protection in any existing law more
clearly in the interest of agriculture, I should be obliged to any
gentleman if he will name it.

Now, I do not deny that there are some features of this bill
which I desire to see changed. I believe we ought to reduce,
and I believe we shall reduce, the proposed duty on several ar-
ticles named. But if a dozen articles out of the hundreds named
in the bill were somewhat reduced, I would be pleased if any
gentleman here would then point out its supposed exorbitant
features and alleged enormities. It is very easy to join in a
general clamor which others have raised, but not so easy to
state the cause of the outcry.

Mr. Farquhar. I desire to ask the gentleman what, in his judg-
ment, would be the effect of increasing the duty on railroad iron one
hundred per cent, as it is increased by this bill, including the amount of
deduction made by the Internal Revenue Bill, upon the great interests
of the West, now largely engaged in the construction of additional
railways.

I am willing, as a compromise and to favor the building of
railroads, to vote for a reduction of the proposed duty on rail-
road iron, and I presume the Committee of Ways and Means
will agree with me in this. I think we should also reduce the
proposed duty on salt, and I have no doubt in several other
particulars we shall be able to reduce the rate of duty.

Mr. Stevens. Why not at once come out honestly and accept the
proposition of the gentleman from Iowa,* which is a much better and
more ingenious one ?

I will tell the gentleman why before I am done. The gen-
tleman from Iowa 2 says wc ought not to adopt the policy of
protecting those industries of this country that we can make
money at, and if the people cannot make money out of manu-
facturing enterprises, let them go into something more profitable.
He says wc can raise grain for the world without protective
legislation. Let me repeat to him a little of the history of grain-
raising in this country. There was a time when New England
was a great grain-raising country. At a later period, New York
was the granary of the New World. Later still, the granary was
Pennsylvania, then Ohio ; then it was still farther to the west.
But what is the situation now? New England raises wheat enough

^ Mr. Wilson. 2 i\^^ Kasson.

THE TARIFF BILL OF i866. 21 1

to feed her people three weeks in the year ; New York raises
enough to feed her people six months; Pennsylvania just about
enough to supply the wants of her people, with none to spare ;
and Ohio produces a surplus of three million bushels. You
must now go to the prairies of the West before you reach the
granary of this country. Now, I wish to say that this talk
about putting our people wholly into the business of raising
grain for the world is utterly absurd and mischievous. Let me
put a practical question to these extreme free-trade gentlemen
in reference to this matter. Suppose that to-day we were at
war with the great powers of Europe, — suppose we had always
been practising their precepts, and were engaged wholly in
raising grain, — having no manufacturing establishments, as we
should not have had but for the protection that has been ac-
corded to that kind of industry by our predecessors, — should
we not be completely at the mercy of the other nations of the
earth? Edward Everett declared in a speech in 183 1, after
making a careful estimate, that the extra amount paid by the
government of the United States for woollen blankets and cloth-
ing for their soldiers in the war of 181 2 largely exceeded the
amount of revenue ever derived by the United States from all
its tariffs for the protection of all our industries from the foun-
dation of the government to 1831 ; and that it would have
effected a great saving to the government if Congress had ex-
pended many millions of money directly from the treasury before
that war, and had built up and had in readiness these manufac-
tories for the use of the government during the war.

Against the abstract doctrine of free trade, as such, very little
can be said. As a theory, there is much to commend it ; but
it can never be applied to nations, except in time of peace. It
can never be applied to the nations of the earth, except when
they are on the same range of growth and culture. Let war
come, and it utterly destroys and overturns the whole doctrine
in its practical application. Says Prcscott : —

" Nothing is easier than to parade abstract theorems, true in the ab-
stract, in political economy ; nothing harder than to reduce them to
practice. That an individual will understand his own interests better
than the government can, or, what is the same thing, that trade, if let
alone, will fmd its way into the channels on the whole most advantageous
to the community, few will deny. But what is true of all together is not
true of any one singly ; and no one nation can safely act on these prin-

212 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

ciples if others do not. In point of fact, no nation has acted on them
since the formation of the present political communities of Europe. All
that a new state, or a new government in an old one, can now propose
to itself is, not to sacrifice its interests to a speculative abstraction, but
to accommodate its institutions to the great political system of which it
is a member. On these principles, and on the higher obligation of pro-
viding the means of national independence in its most extended sense,
much that was bad in the economical policy of Spain at the period under
review may be vindicated." ^

The example of England has been held up before us. A
word about that example. There is a venerable member in this
hall who was a member of this House long before England had
professed her free-trade doctrines, — while she was one of the
most highly protective nations on the face of the earth. For
two hundred years she pursued a policy that was absolutely
prohibitory; then followed a protective period ; now she pro-
fesses free trade. When she had built up her manufactures,
and had become able to compete successfully with the world in
matters of commerce, she graciously invited all nations to drop
their protective policy and become free-traders. It is like a
giant or an athlete who, after months of training, asks all the
delicate clerks and students to come out and fight or run with
him on equal terms.

I have before me a statement of the revenues of Great Britain
for the last year. Her total revenue was $354,000,000. Of this
sum» $115,000,000, or thirty-two per cent, she raised from cus-
toms ; and it is a remarkable fact that that is precisely the per
cent of our revenue that was raised from customs last year.
This shows that she raises as much by her tariff as we do by
ours in proportion to the amount of our revenue. If gentlemen
desire simply to prostrate us before England, if they desire to
capitulate to her in commerce as we never have capitulated in
arms, let them follow in the lead of these free-trade philoso-
phers. I hold a pamphlet in my hand that was laid upon the
desks of members this morning; and in reply to the question
of my colleague,^ Who in this country is demanding that this
bill be defeated or postponed? I will tell him. Here is the
address of the Free-Trade Association of London to the Ameri-
can Free-Trade League, and if I had time I would read a few

1 Ferdinand and Isabella, Vol. I. p. 488 (Philadelphia, 1873).
8 Mr. Delano.

THE TARIFF BILL OF x866. 213

V

extracts from it Let me read you one of the headings : " Pro-
tection unnecessary to foster manufactures in their infancy/'
They have evidently outgrown their teachers, for John Stuart
Mill admits that much. England never taught that doctrine
until her manufactures had passed beyond their infancy, and
stood breast-high with the world in the full vigor of manhood.
I read a sentence from this disinterested lecture of English-
men to Americans, — of the shopkeeper to his customer, — of
the '' nation of shopkeepers " to the nation of customers and
grain-raisers that some gentlemen would have us become:
" You have most truly remarked in your constitution that pro-
tection to the producer means robbery to the consumer." Now,
the gentleman from lowa^ who has just made his speech pro-
ceeds upon the doctrine that protection is itself robbery ; and
of course he will vote against this bill, and against all other bills
that propose to throw any protection whatever around American
industry.

Two propositions are before the House to keep us from act-
ing directly upon this bill. The real question is, Shall we pass
the bill after the requisite amendments have been made? But,
fearing it may pass, the gentleman from lowa^ picks out a few
pleasant items that refer mainly to the West, with a sprinkling
for the East, and asks us to have the bill sent back to the com-
mittee, with instructions to report those items alone. He offers
a bait to one section of the Union to induce its representatives
to neglect another.

Mr. Speaker, it is painful to listen to the sectional language
that we hear every day in our debates. One gentleman sneers
at New England, and says, " This measure is a New England
pet"; another points at Pennsylvania, and hits her off in an
epigrammatic sentence; another turns to the rough, sturdy
West, and splinters his lance in a sharp assault upon her. I
always understood, during the terrible struggle of the past four
years, that we did not fight for New England, for Pennsylvania,
or for the West, but wc fought for the Union, with all its one-
ness, its greatness, and its glory. And if we are now to come
back, after the victory is won, and hold up our party flags, and
talk about '* our section *' as against " your section," we are
neither patriots nor friends. There should be no division of in-
terest in all great matters of national legislation. And if New

1 Mr. Kasson. ^ Mr. Wilson.

214 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

England has advanced further than Pennsylvania or the West,
and does not so much need protection, she must bear with her
sisters until they, following in her footsteps, can stand on a
basis of equal growth and prosperity. I hope, therefore, no
such partial legislation as that suggested by the motion of the
gentleman from Iowa will prevail. I should be ashamed to vote
for a measure that singled out the interests of my own State and
neglected the interests of others.

Mr. Wilson. Peraiit me to correct the gentleman, for he is entirely
mistaken in regard to the proposition I made. It does not pick out a
few interests, but leaves a margin not exceeding twenty-five per cent on
everything embraced in the bill.

I want to say in regard to the margin of twenty-five per cent,
that nothing can be more absurd than to say that any one rate
per cent shall be the limit put upon all articles, under any and
all circumstances. And that reminds me of a point which I was
about to forget. I wish to call the attention of the House to
the reason why any revision of the tariff is heeded at this time.
The present tariff law was passed in 1864; gold was then at
200, and it rose during the year to 285. Our tariff was adjusted
to that situation of the currency; and what would be highly
protective then might give no protection now, or when gold
shall be as low as it has been since this House met in session.
That is the great trouble with us now. We are afloat without
any fixed standard of value, and that which would be a proper
duty to-day may be a high duty to-morrow and a low one next
day. I greatly regret that we have not been able to reach
nearer to the solid basis of specie, and base our currency and
all our legislation upon some fixed standard. But while we are
tossing as we now are, going up and down twenty and thirty
per cent on gold in the space of a month, it is necessary that
we have a tariff, temporarily at least, that will safely shield the
interests of the country until we have passed the dangers and
reached a more stable financial condition.

One other proposition has been submitted, and with a notice
of that I will conclude. The gentleman from Massachusetts *
proposes that the whole subject be laid over until another winter.
For many reasons I should be glad if we could have more time
to perfect the measure. It would be well if we could give two
or three months of careful study to the problems connected

1 Mr. Dawes.

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866. 215

with this bill. But gentlemen must remember that the chances
and changes of the next five or six months may be disastrous
to our industries, if we do not, before the close of this session,
adopt some legislation to protect them against sudden danger.
I am sorry, therefore, that my friend from Massachusetts saw
fit to offer that proposition ; it is really only another mode of
killing the bill, and I can hardly believe that he desires such a
result

I hope, sir, that both the propositions to which I have re-
ferred will be voted down ; that we shall amend the bill in sev-
eral particulars, making it as equitable as possible in all its
provisions ; and that we shall pass it. And when the country
comes to understand clearly what we have done, I believe that
the clamor of which we have heard so much will cease, and that
the wisdom of the measure will be vindicated.

NATIONAL POLITICS.

SPEECH DELIVERED AT WARREN, OHIO.

September i, 1866.

FELLOW-<;iTIZENS,— The great conflict of arms through
which the nation has passed, the many and peculiar con-
sequences resulting therefrom, and especially the new duties
devolving upon the people, must, for the present and for many
years to come, be the chief topics of political discussion. The
stupendous facts of the Rebellion overshadow and involve all
other political considerations, and the new problems arising
out of the contest are beset with difficulties of unusual magni-
tude. The work of overcoming these difficulties and solving
these problems has been committed by the good people of the
United States to their representatives in the legislative, execu-
tive and judicial departments of the Federal government, and
some progress has been made during the past year in overcom-
ing them. I shall undertake to show you, my fellow-citizens,
what progress the servants of the people have made in the
discharge of these high duties. I shall speak of the progress
made during the past year in, —
I. Our financial affairs;
II. Our military affairs ;

III. The restoration of the States lately in rebellion.

First, our financial affairs. The pecuniary cost of the war
was enormous, and without a parallel in history. It is impos-
sible even to comprehend the sum expended. It can only be
understood when compared with other expenditures. In the
statements I shall make concerning the cost of the war, let it
be remembered that I do not include the loss occasioned by
the withdrawal of more than two millions of laborers from in-
dustrial pursuits, nor the vast sums expended by States, counties,

NATIONAL POLITICS. 217

cities, and individuals in payment of bounties, and for the relief
of sick and wounded soldiers and their families, nor the larger
losses, which can never be estimated, of property destroyed by
hostile armies. The cost of which I shall speak is that which
appears on the books of the Federal Treasury.

For three quarters of a century the debt of Great Britain has
been considered the financial wonder of the world. That debt,
which had its origin in the Revolution of 1688, was swelled by
more than one hundred years of wars, and other political dis-
asters, till, in 1793, it had reached the sum of $1,268,000,000.
From that time till 1815, a period of twenty-two years of terri-
ble war, England was engaged in a life and death struggle with
Napoleon, — the greatest war of history save our own, — and
at its close, in 181 5, she had added $3,056,000,000 to her debt,
a sum which all the world thought must bring her to financial
ruin. From the 30th of June, i860, to the 30th of June, 1865,
the expenditures of the government of the United States were
more than $3,500,000,000; that is, in five years, we increased
our debt $500,000,000 more than England increased hers in
twenty-two years of her greatest war, — almost as much as she
increased it in one hundred and twenty-five years of war.

But let us compare ourselves with ourselves. Our official
records show that the total cost of our war of Independence
was $135,000,000, and the total expenditure of the Federal
government, from the meeting of the First Congress on the 4th
of March, 1789, to June 30, i860, was $2,015,000,000; making
the total expenditures from the beginning of the Revolution in
1775 to the beginning of the Rebellion, $2,150,000,000. That
is, the expenses of the last five years have been $1,350,000,000
more than all the previous expenses since the government was
founded.

According to the census of i860, the total value of all the
real and personal property in the United States was sixteen
billions of dollars ; the cost of the war was more than three
and a half billions, — that is, every one hundred and sixty dol-
lars' worth of property became liable for the payment of thirty-
five dollars of war expenses. Our debt is part of the money
price which the nation pledged to save its existence, and we
are bound by the sense of gratitude, of honor, and of patriotism
to redeem that pledge, principal and interest, to the uttermost
farthing. The loyal people have accepted the responsibility,

2i8 NATIONAL POLITICS.

and cheerfully consent to bear the burden of such taxes as
would hardly be endured by any other nation. Indeed, a lead-
ing English journal has recently declared that, if Parliament
should impose a tax upon the English people as heavy as the
one now paid by the people of the United States, it would
cause a rebellion in that kingdom.

More than $800,000,000 of our expenses was paid by taxa-
tion while the war was in progress, and during the last fiscal
year, besides paying our heavy annual expenses, we have re-
duced the debt $124,000,000; so that, on the ist of August,
1866, our debt stood at $2,633,000,000. Should we be able to
reduce it at the same rate hereafter, the last dollar of it would
be paid in twenty-one years. Nearly all of this debt is held by
citizens of the United States, who loaned their money to the
government at a time when traitors were hoping, and faint-
hearted friends were fearing, that our cause would be lost. It
was a sublime and inspiring spectacle to see the loyal millions,
from the wealthy capitalist to the day laborer, offering their
substance as a loan to the government, when their only hope
of return rested in their faith in the justice of our cause and
the success of our arms. There were single days in which
$25,000,000 was thus offered. Less than half the debt is now
in long bonds, which have from fifteen to thirty-five years to
run, but $1,600,000,000 will fall due within two years and a
half. As they cannot be paid by taxation in so short a time.
Congress at its last session passed a loan bill, authorizing the
Secretary of the Treasury to retire these short bonds, and put
out in their stead long bonds, if practicable, at a lower rate
of interest. The bill, however, did not authorize any increase
of the debt, but only an exchange of long bonds for short ones,
which is now being effected.

Intimately connected with our public debt is our national
currency. At the breaking out of the war, the currency of the
country consisted of gold and silver, and the circulating notes
of sixteen hundred banks, organized under the laws of the dif-
ferent States. The notes of these banks, not being based upon
any uniform security, were of different relative value, and were
always of less value as they were farther from home. Our pa-
per-money system had become a grievous evil, for which there
seemed to be no remedy. But tjie necessities of the war com-
pelled the government to take some new step, and the oppor-

NATIONAL POLITICS. 219

tunity was fortunately seized by our distinguished Secretary of
the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, to sweep away the vicious sys-
tem of State banks, which had grown up in defiance of the plain
declaration of the Constitution, that ** no State shall emit bills of
credit, or make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in
payment of debts," and to substitute in its place our present cir-
culation of greenbacks and national bank notes. When a citizen
holds a dollar of this bank paper in his hand, he knows that
there is one dollar and ten cents in government bonds locked
up in the vaults of the treasury at Washington and pledged
for its redemption, in case the bank should fail. This dollar is
national, and not local. It is the same in Minnesota as in Maine.

But another and still more important advantage has been
gained by the change in our system of currency. Under the
old system, the general government had no control over the
amount of currency in circulation. Each bank issued notes in
accordance with the laws of the State in which it was organized.
Now, it is a well-settled principle of finance, that no more
money is needed in any country than just the amount necessary
to effect the payments to be made in that country. If there be
less than that amount, the money market is stringent, and ex-
changes are difficult; if there be more, the surplus causes a
rise in prices, or, v/hat is the same thing, a depreciation of the
value of each dollar. By taking the control of the currency
into its own hands, Congress was enabled to regulate the amount
of circulation in accordance with the necessities of business.

The vast expenditures of the war required a large increase
of the volume of the currency. Before the war, about three
hundred millions of money was needed for the business of the
country. Much of the time during the war, we had more than
one thousand millions. Now that we are returning to the pur-
suits of peace, it becomes necessary to reduce the amount of
our paper money, and thus bring prices down to the old stan-
dard. To determine whether there is too much currency in
circulation is always difficult, but the best criterion is the price
of gold. We may be certain that in times of peace, when
there are no great disturbing political causes at work, if a paper
dollar is worth much less than a gold dollar, there are many
more paper dollars than the business of the country demands.
Therefore, in the Loan Bill, Congress provides for a gradual
contraction of the currency. Under the operation of that law.

220 NATIONAL POLITICS.

and with a judicious management of our revenues, we may
expect a gradual decline in gold, and a corresponding fall in
prices, until we shall reach the solid basis of gold and silver.
An uncertain and changeable standard of value is a great finan-
cial evil. If the dollar of to-day shall be worth a dollar and a
half in six months from now, the debtor must pay fifty cents
more than he promised; if in six months the dollar shall be
worth that much less, the creditor would suffer a similar loss.

Here let me remark that, if the Democratic party, which holds
to the extreme doctrine of State rights, should come into power,
they would, without doubt, sweep away our national currency
system, and return to the wretched system of State banks and
State currency.

The maintenance of our national credit, and the ultimate
redemption of our national debt, must depend mainly on a
wise, just, but severe system of Federal taxation. Until the
beginning of the late war, but one of the great nations of the
earth was so lightly taxed as our own. We had not studied
the science of taxation, because, happily, we had no need to
do so. But the war brought the heaviest burdens upon our
people, and when the Thirty-ninth Congress assembled, we
found that many of our taxes were levied upon those branches
of industry which were least able to bear them. Nearly all
our revenues are derived from two sources, viz. the customs
or tariff duties, and internal taxes. Congress made at the late
session a thorough revision of the internal revenue system, and
it is believed that many important improvements have been
made. The provisions of the revenue law of July 13, 1866, are
based upon the following general principles : — -

1. Taxes which tend to discourage the development of wealth
should be abolished or greatly reduced, and the law be so ad-
justed that the burdens shall chiefly fall on realized property.

2. Taxes should not be duplicated by taxing the different
processes through which an article passes in being manufac-
tured, but the tax should be laid upon the finished article when
ready for sale.

3. Articles of prime necessity, like provisions, clothing, agri-
cultural implements, should be nearly or quite exempt from
taxation, and the public burdens should fall upon articles which
minister to vice and luxury.

Guided by these general principles, and finding that the

NATIONAL POLITICS. 221

ample revenues of the goverament would enable us to reduce the
amount of taxation seventy-five millions, Congress proceeded
to exempt entirely from taxation building materials, such as
building stone, slate, marble, brick, tiles, window glass, paint,
painter's colors, linseed oil and other vegetable oils, lime, and
Roman cement; also repairs of all kinds; also agricultural
implements and products, such as machinery for the manufac-
ture of sugar, syrup, and molasses from sorghum, imphee, beets
and com, ploughs, cultivators, harrows, planters, seed drills,
hand rakes, grain cradles, reapers, mowers, threshing machines,
winnowing mills, corn shellers, and cotton gins ; also such ar-
ticles of prime necessity as gypsum, and fertilizers of all kinds,
maple, beet, sorghum, and beet sugar, and molasses, vinegar,
saleratus, starch, and soap valued at less than three cents per
pound; also American steel and railroad iron; and, finally,
all tombstones valued at less than $ioo, and all monuments,
whether erected by public or private munificence, to commemo-
rate the service of Union soldiers who fell in battle or died in
the service. They reduced the tax on clothing and on boots
and shoes from six per cent to two per cent ; exempted milliners
and dress-makers from tax, and exempted shoemakers and
tailors the value of whose work exclusive of materials does not
exceed one hundred dollars per annum. The tax on slaughtered
animals, being a war tax, was repealed. Except cotton and to-
bacco, no agricultural product is now taxed at all. No license
or special tax is now required of farmers, while all other pursuits
and professions are required to pay such a tax, from ten to one
thousand dollars, and more, in proportion to the amount of the
business done.

As an illustration of the vicious system of duplication of taxes,
it was found that by the time an American book was sold in the
market there had been paid from twelve to fifteen separate taxes
upon it. Each constituent part of the book — paper, cloth,
leather, boards, thread, glue, gold-leaf, and type material — had
paid a tax of from three to five per cent, and the finished article,
when sold, had paid a tax of five per cent upon the selling price.
The law was therefore so amended as to remove the tax from the
separate parts and processes, and levy it on the finished product.
On this principle the tax on mineral coal, pig-iron, and castings
for parts of machinery, was repealed, and placed upon the ma-
chine when finished. The tax was removed from crude petro-

222 NATIONAL POLITICS,

leum, and placed upon the refined article when ready for use.
The tax on stoves and hollow ware for domestic use was re-
duced from six to three dollars per ton. That our educational
forces might not be weakened, the tax on books, magazines,
newspapers, printing paper, and all printing material, was greatly
reduced. The heaviest taxes are now levied on distilled spirits,
ale, beer, tobacco, cigars, refined petroleum, cotton, gas, car-
riages of high value, and gold and silver plate ; but silver table
ware used by any one family, not exceeding forty ounces, is
exempt from tax. Fifty per cent of all our internal taxes arc
raised on manufactures. Stamp taxes, another very productive
source of revenue, are nearly all paid by the business men of the
country.

Our second source of revenue is the customs duties on im-
ported goods, from which we realize about one third of all our
revenues. A carefully revised tariff bill passed the House, but
was postponed in the Senate till the next session. It provided
for increased protection on American wool, linseed, tobacco
and cigars, iron and steel, and the various articles manufactured
from them. A bill was passed, however, which will indirectly
effect a considerable increase of tariff duties. As the law before
stood, the ad valorem duties on imports were levied on the price
at which the articles were purchased in the foreign country, ex-
clusive of cost of transportation to the seaboard and the port
charges. Importers bought their goods far in the interior, and
consequently paid the duty on a price much lower than the
article could be bought for at the point of export. By the new
law the duty is to be levied on the articles after all the transpor-
tation, storage, weighagc, wharfage, and port charges have been
added to the original purchase price. This will both increase
the duties and protect the government against fraud.

On the general question of protection there are great extremes
of opinion among the people of the United States, and these ex-
tremes appear in full strength among their representatives in
Congress. One class would have us place so high a duty upon
foreign merchandise as to prohibit the importation of any ar-
ticle which this country produces or can produce. Besides
placing us in an attitude of perpetual hostility to other nations,
and greatly reducing our carrying trade, this policy would tend
to make monopolists of all the leading manufacturers of this
country, who could fix the price of all their products at their
own discretion.

NATIONAL FOLITICS.

223

If, on the other hand, we should adopt the theories of the
radical free-trader, and declare that our tariff shall be all for
revenue and nothing for protection, and particularly should that
doctrine be put in practice at such a time as 1836, when we had
no debt, and a large surplus in the treasury, no one can fail to
see that we should break down the dikes which our predecessors
have erected for the defence of American industries which pro-
duce nearly one half the annual income of the people. It would
revolutionize our industrial system, and place us at the mercy
of foreign manufacturers. Let either of these parties frame the
tariff, and the result will be calamitous in the highest degree.

One of the worst features of our industrial system is the
irregularity and the uncertainty of the legislation in reference
to the tariff. It subjects the business of manufacturers to the
uncertainty of a lottery. If the high protectionists succeed one
year, the profits • of the manufacturers are enormous ; if, as is
quite probable, the reaction of the next year puts free-traders
in power, their losses are equally great. What, then, is the
point of equilibrium where we can balance these great indus-
tries with the most reasonable hope of permanence ? We have
seen that one extreme school of economists would place the
price of all manufactured articles in the hands of foreign pro-
ducers, by rendering it impossible for our manufacturers to
compete with them; while the other extreme school, by making
it impossible for the foreigners to sell their competing wares in
our market, would leave no check upon the prices which our
manufacturers might fix upon their products. I hold, therefore,
that a properly adjusted competition between home and foreign
products is the best gauge by which to regulate international
trade. Duties should be so high that our manufacturers can
fairly compete with foreign manufacturers, but not so high as
to enable them to drive out foreign articles, enjoy a monopoly,
and regulate the prices as they please. To this extent I am a
protectionist. If our government pursues this line of policy
steadily, we shall, year by year, approach more nearly the basis
of free trade, because we shall be more nearly able to compete
with other nations on equal terms. I am for that protection
which leads to ultimate free trade ; I am for that free trade
which can be achieved only through protection.

Secondly, our military affairs. When the Rebellion col-
lapsed, in 1865, we had on the rolls of the army and in the pay

224 NATIONAL POLITICS.

of the government over one million soldiers. A few weeks later
a larger army than was ever actually engaged in one battle, with
a rare perfection of discipline and completeness of military out-
fit, marched in review before the President and his Cabinet at
Washington ; mustered out of service, these soldiers quietly re-
sumed the pursuits of peace, and mingled again with the mass
of citizens. There had been in the field more than two millions
of Union soldiers, of whom two hundred and fifty thousand per-
ished in battle and by disease, and almost as many more came
home nearly or quite disabled by the accidents of war. In
January last the army had been reduced to one hundred and
twenty-three thousand men, and Congress has now fixed its
numbers for the future at about fifty-five thousand. In reor-
ganizing the army, and adding new regiments. Congress has pro-
vided that all company officers needed to fill the places result-
ing from the increase of the regular army, and two thirds of the
field officers, shall be taken from the volunteers, to be selected
from officers or enlisted men, no distinction being made between
them. But applicants must produce evidence of good character
and capacity, stand an examination before a board, and show, in
addition to their testimonials, that they have faithfully and effi-
ciently served, cither as officers or men, at some time during the
war against the Rebellion. Congress has also provided that four
regiments of infantry and two regiments of cavalry shall be col-
ored men, and their officers shall be selected from those officers
who commanded colored troops during the war. It is also pro-
vided that four regiments shall be made up of officers and en-
listed men who received injuries while in the service of their
country, but are still able to perform garrison duty and other
light service.

The pension list has been largely increased, and the pensions
of soldiers and sailors who have lost both arms or both legs have
been doubled. No patriot will object to the increased burden
imposed upon him in discharging his sacred duty to those
heroic sufferers.

The legislation in reference to equalizing bounties was not so
satisfactory. It was very desirable to pass some law by which
the bounties to volunteers should be made to approach equality.
A considerable portion of the army received no bounties, while
others received large local, State, and national bounties. It is
a difficult question to settle on any just basis without involving

NATIONAL POLITICS. 225

the government in a dangerous increase of the public debt.
After mature deliberation the Military Committee of the House
brought in a bill which provided that every soldier who had re-
ceived no bounty should be paid eight and one third dollars for
every month of honorable service, which would be one hundred
dollars for each full year. If he had received a bounty, but less
than that amount, the government should {:>ay him the deficit ;
so that every soldier in the Union army should receive a bounty
of at least one hundred dollars for each year of honorable ser-
vice. This bill passed the House by the unanimous vote of the
Union members, but the Senate took no action upon it. Near
the close of the session the Senate added to an appropriation
bill a section increasing the pay of members of Congress. The
House refused to concur, but added in place of that section the
House Bounty Bill. The Senate refused to concur, but after
several conferences between the two houses, a section was
agreed upon which gives a bounty of one hundred dollars to
every soldier who enlisted and served three years, and who has
not already received more than one hundred dollars bounty, and
a bounty of fifty dollars to every soldier who enlisted and served
for the term of two years, and who has not already received a
bounty of more than one hundred dollars. The operation of
this section is confined exclusively to these two classes ; it
gives no more for four years' service than for three, and gives
nothing to those soldiers who enlisted for a less term than
two years. It is much less just than the flouse bill, and, since
it was coupled with a section which increases the pay of mem-
bers of Congress, I voted against both sections. They passed
the House, however, by a majority of one, and became law.
It is hoped and believed that the original flouse bill, or some
equivalent measure, will become a law at the next session.

Although measures of financial and military legislation are
worthy of the earnest attention of every citizen, I fear I have
already dwelt too long upon them. I therefore invite your
attention to the questions that so nearly concern our future
peace, that form the great issues which must be settled by the
ballots of the people at the coming election.

Thirdly, the restoration of the late Rebel States. For a clear
understanding of the issues, let us consider the character of the
contest through which we have passed.

The Rebellion had its origin in two causes; first, the political

VOL. I. 15

226 NATIONAL POLITICS.

theory of State Sovereignty, and second, the historical accident
of American slavery. The doctrine of State Sovereignty, or
State Rights as it has been more mildly designated, was first
publicly announced in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, but was
more fully elaborated and enforced by Calhoun in 1830 and
1833. Since that time it has been acknowledged as a funda-
mental principle in the creed of the Democratic party, and has
been affirmed and reaffirmed in some form in nearly all its State
and national platforms for the last thirty years. That doctrine,
as stated by Calhoun in 1833, is in substance this: "The Con-
stitution of the United States is a compact to which the people
of each State acceded as a separate and sovereign community ;
therefore it has an equal right to judge for itself as well of the
infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.'* The same
party identified itself with the interests of American slavery, and,
lifting from it the great weight of odium which the fathers of the
republic had laid upon it, became its champion and advocate.

When the party of freedom had awakened the conscience of
the nation, and had gained such strength as to show the De-
mocracy that slavery was forever checked in its progress, and
that its ultimate extinction by legislative authority was fore-
doomed, the Democratic leaders of the South joined in a mad
conspiracy to save and perpetuate slavery by destroying the
Union. In the name of State Sovereignty they declared that
secession was a constitutional right, and they resolved to en-
force it by arms. They declared that, as the Constitution to
which each State in its sovereign capacity acceded created no
common judge to which a matter of difference could be referred,
each State might also in its sovereign capacity secede from the
compact, might dissolve the Union, might annihilate the repub-
lic. The Democracy of eleven slave States undertook the work.
As far as possible, they severed every tie that bound them to
the Union. They withdrew their representatives from every
department of the Federal government; they seized all the
Federal property within the limits of their States; they abol-
ished all the Federal courts and every other vestige of Federal
authority within their reach ; they changed all their State con-
stitutions, transferring their allegiance to a gov^ernmcnt of their
own creation, styled the '* Confederate States of America " ;
they assumed sovereign power, and, gathering up every possi-
ble element of force, assailed the Union in the most savage and

NATIONAL POLITICS. 227

merciless war known to civilized nations. It was not, as some
maintain, merely a lawless insurrection of individual traitors;
it was '* a civil territorial war," waged by eight millions of trai-
tors, acting through eleven traitor States consolidated into a
gigantic despotism of treason, — a government de facto ^ to
which the laws of nations accorded belligerent rights. The
Confederacy was acknowledged as a belligerent by all the lead-
ing nations of Europe, and at last by every department of the
government of the United States; by the Supreme Court in
the celebrated prize cases of 1862, and by repeated acts of both
the executive and legislative departments.

Never was an issue more clearly made up or more desper-
ately contested. The Confederates fought for slavery and the
right of secession, for the destruction of the Union and the
establishment of a government based on slavery ; the loyal
millions fought to destroy the Rebellion and its causes. They
fought to save slavery by means of disunion; we fought to
establish both liberty and union, and to make them one and
inseparable now and forever. It was a life and death struggle
between ideas that could no longer dwell together in the same
political society. There could be no compromise, there could
be no peace, while both were left alive. The one must perish
if the other triumphed.

There was no compromise. The struggle was continued to
the bitter end. In the larger meaning of the word, there was
no surrender. The Rebels did not lay down their arms, for the
soldiers of the Union wrenched them from their grasp. They
did not strike their traitor flag; it was shot down by loyal bul-
lets. The Rebel army never was disbanded ; its regiments and
brigades were mustered out by the shot and shell of our victo-
rious armies. They never pulled down the Confederate govern-
ment, but its blazing rafters fell amidst the conflagration of war,
and its ashes were scattered by the whirlwind of battle.

And now, fellow-citizens, after the completest victory ever
won by human valor, — a victory for the Union which was all
victory and no concession, — after a defeat of the Rebels, which
was all defeat and no surrender, — we arc asked to listen to the
astonishing proposition that this war had no results beyond the
mere fact of victory. A great political party is asking the suf-
frages of the people in support of the unutterably atrocious
assertion that these red-handed and vanquished traitors have

228 NATIONAL POLITICS,

lost no rights or privileges by their defeat, and the victors have
acquired no rights over traitors and treason as the fruit of their
victory ! These antediluvian philosophers seem to have turned
down a leaf in the record of the life of the republic in April,
1861, and they propose now, in the year of grace 1866, to begin
again where they ceased reading five years ago, as if there had
been no crime, no treason, no deluge of blood, no overthrow of
rebellion, no triumph of liberty. Fellow-citizens, who are the
men that advocate this monstrous doctrine? I cannot answer
this question without discussing freely the public conduct of
the President of the United States.

For the first eight months after the collapse of the Rebellion,
I did not hear that any man making the smallest claim to loy
alty presumed to deny the right of the government to impose
conditions upon the States and people lately in rebellion. Cer-
tainly the President did not. Both in his executive acts and in
repeated declarations, he affirmed again and again the right of
the government to demand security for the future, — to require
the performance of certain acts on the part of the Rebel States
as preliminary to restoration.

You will remember, fellow-citizens, that when I addressed
you in the spring of 1865, shortly after the assassination of
President Lincoln, I expressed the belief that Andrew Johnson
would treat traitors with the severity their crimes demanded.
There was a general apprehension that he might be too severe,
and demand conditions so hard as to make the restoration of
the Rebel States a work of great difficulty. It was said that he
knew from personal experience what the Rebellion was, and
what treatment treason deserved. The American people re-
membered his repeated declarations on this whole subject.
They remembered his bold speech at Nashville, on the 9th of
June, 1864, when he accepted the nomination for the Vice-
Presidency, and used the following language : —

"Why all this carnage and devastation? It was that treason might be
put down and traitors punished. Therefore, I say that traitors should
take a back seat in the work of restoration. If there be but five thousand
men in Tennessee loyal to the Constitution, loyal to freedom, loyal to
justice, these true and faithful men should control the work of reorganiza-
tion and reformation absolutely. I say that the traitor has ceased to be
a citizen, and in joining the Rebellion has become a public enemy. He
forfeited his right to vote with loyal men when he renounced his citizen-

NATIONAL POLITICS. 229

ship and sought to destroy our government My judgment is that

he should be subjected to a severe ordeal before he is restored to citi-
zenship Ah ! these Rebel leaders have a strong personal reason

for holding out to save their necks from the halter ; and these leaders
must feel the power of the. government. Treason must be made odious,
and traitors must be punished and impoverished. Their great planta-
tions must be seized and divided into small farms, and sold to honest, in-
dustrious men. The day for protecting the lands and negroes of these
authors of the Rebellion is past." ^

They remembered his speeches at Washington after his in-
auguration, in which the same sentiments were repeated. They
remembered that in his address to Governor Morton and the
Indiana delegation, on the 21st of April, 1865, six days after
the pistol of Booth made him President of the United States, he
said : —

" It is not promulgating anything that I have not heretofore said, to
say that traitors must be made odious, that treason must be made odious,
that traitors must be punished and impoverished. They must not only
be punished, but their social power must be destroyed. If not, they
will still maintain an ascendency, and may again become numerous and
powerful ; for, in the words of a former Senator of the United States,
* when traitors become numerous enough, treason becomes respectable.*
And I say that, after making treason odious, every Union man and the
government should be remunerated out of the pockets of those who have
inflicted this great suffering upon the country Some time the re-
bellion may go on increasing in numbers till the State machinery is over-
turned, and the country becomes like a man that is paralyzed on one
side. But we find in the Constitution a great panacea provided. It
provides that the United States (that is, the great integer) shall guarantee
to each State (the integers composing the whole) in this Union a repub-
lican form of government. Yes, if rebellion had been rampant, and set
aside the machinery of a State for a time, there stands the great law to
remove the paralysis, and revitalize it, and put it on its feet again." ^

It is true, however, that there were even then those who ex-
pressed doubts of his sincerity, and feared he would betray his
trust. When, during the months of May, June, and July, 1865,
they saw him appointing Provisional Governors for seven of
the Rebel States, and ordering the assembling of conventions
to form new constitutions and rebuild their State governments,
many thought he should have called upon Congress to assemble
and perform the duty enjoined upon it in the Constitution of

* McPhcrson's History of Reconstruction, pp. 46, 47, note. ^ ibid., pp. 45, 46.

230 NATIONAL POLITICS.

guaranteeing to every State in the Union a republican form of
government. But the confidence of the people was kept alive
by his repeated declarations to the Governors and conventions
that his work was only provisional, and must all be submitted
to Congress for its action.

On the 29th of May, 1865, he published his amnesty procla-
mation, and on the same day appointed William W. Holdcn
Provisional Governor of North Carolina. In the proclamation of
appointment he declared that whereas " the Constitution of the
United States declares that the United States shall guarantee .to
every State in the Union a republican form of government, ....
and whereas the Rcbellicn has in its rezwliiiionary progress de-
prived the people of the State of North Carolina of all civil govern-
mcnty' he therefore appointed William W. Holden Provisional
Governor, " with authority to exercise within the limits of said
State all the powers necessary and proper to enable such loyal
people of North Carolina to restore said State to its constitu-
tional relations to the Federal government, and to present such
a republican form of State government as will entitle the State
to the guaranty of the United States therefor, and its people to
protection by the United States." ^ On the same terms seven
other Governors were appointed. On the 12th of September,
the Secretary of State, by direction of the President, wrote to
Governor Marvin, of Florida, a letter, which concluded in these
words: "It must, however, be distinctly understood that the
restoration to which your proclamation refers will be subject to
the decision of Congress." ^

But the confidence of the people did not rest solely upon the
fact that the President held that all his work was provisional,
and must be referred to Congress for its final settlement. Their
confidence was still further strengthened by his repeated official
declarations that guaranties must be demanded of the Rebel
States before they could be restored to their practical relations
to the Union.

On the 28th of October, the Secretary of State wrote to the
Provisional Governor of Georgia as follows : ** The President
of the United States cannot recognize the people of any State as
having resumed the relations of loyalty to the Union that ad-
mits as legal, obligations contracted or debts created in their
name to promote the war of the Rebellion." ^

1 McPherson's History of Reconstruction, p. 11. a Ibid., p. 25.

8 Ibid., p. 21.

NATIONAL FOLITICS. 231

On the 1st of November, he wrote to the Provisional Gov-
ernor of Florida the following : " Your letter of October 7 was
received and submitted to the President. He is gratified with the
favorable progress toward reorganization in Florida, and directs
me to say that he regards the ratification by the legislature of
the Congressional Amendment [Thirteenth] of the Constitution
of the United States as indispensable to a successful restora-
tion of the true legal relations between Florida and the other
States, and equally indispensable to the return of peace and
harmony throughout the republic." ^

On the 6th of November he wrote to the Provisional Gover-
nor of South Carolina these words : ** Your despatch to the Pres-
ident, of November 4, has been received. He is not entirely sat-
isfied with the explanations it contains. He deems necessary the
passage of adequate ordinances declaring that all insurrectionary
proceedings in the State were unlawful and void ab initio^ ^

In these utterances the President had plainly demanded at
least three conditions indispensable to restoration : —

1st. That the Rebel States should declare their ordinances of
secession void ab initio,

2d. That they should ratify the Constitutional Amendment
abolishing slavery.

3d. That they should repudiate the Rebel debt, and that their
whole conduct in the premises should be referred to Congress
for its action.

But during the months of autumn there were rumors in the
air which troubled the peace of patriotic citizens. It was whis-
pered that the President was going over to our political enemies.
It was observed that the tone of the Democratic and Rebel
press had wonderfully changed toward him. P>om the begin-
ning of the war till the summer of 1865, Southern traitors and
Northern Democrats had vied with each other in their denun-
ciation of his public acts, — of his political and private charac-
ter. The Rebels had all along denounced him as a renegade, a
traitor to his country, a low-born boor ; while Northern Demo-
cratic journals, like the New York World, had denounced him
as a turncoat, a tyrant, a boorish tailor, a drunken brute, less
respectable than Nero's horse. But as the fall elections of 1865
approached, they began to speak of him as an old-fashioned
Democrat who had not forgotten the lessons of his youth, and

1 McPhcrson's History of Reconstruction, p. 25. ^ Ibid., p. 23.

232 NATIONAL POLITICS.

who would yet turn his back upon the Union party, and return
to the embrace of his former friends. The people were alarmed
at these manifestations, but were somewhat reassured by the
declarations of the President made to Major George L. Stearns
on the 3d of October, when he said : —

" The power of those persons who made the attempt [at rebellion]
has been crushed, and now we want to reconstruct the State govern-
ments and have the power to do it. The. State institutions are prostrated,
laid out on the ground, and they must be taken up and adapted to the

progress of events We must not be in too much of a hurry. It

is better to let them reconstruct themselves than to force them to it;
for if they go wrong the power is in our hands, and we can check them

in any stage tp the end, and oblige them to correct their errors

In Tennessee I should try to introduce negro suffrage gradually ; first,
those who have served in the army, those who could read and write, and
perhaps a property qualification for others, say $200 or I250." ^

When Congress met, in December last, there was great anx-
iety and no little alarm. From the first hour of the session, the
little junto of Rebel sympathizers known as the Democratic
party in Congress became the eulogists and defenders of the
President. Their denunciations of the Union party echoed fa-
miliarly as of old through the halls of the Capitol ; but their
censures were turned to praises, their curses to blessings, when
they spoke of the President elected by the Union party.

But even then we did not lose all our faith in Andrew Johnson.
Mis annual message, though carefully worded, reiterated many of
his former declarations, and the most radical men in Congress
thanked him, and took new courage. In that message he said : —

" It is not too much to ask, in the name of the whole people, that on
the one side the pkm of restoration shall proceed in conformity with a
willingness to cast the disorders of the past into oblivion ; and that, on
the other, the evidence of sincerity in the future maintenance of the
Union shall be put beyond any doubt by the ratification of the proposed
amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the abolition of slav-
ery forever within the limits of our country. So long as the adoption of
this amendment is delayed, so long will doubt and jealousy and uncer-
tainty prevail Indeed, it is not too much to ask of the States which

are now resuming their places in the family of the Union to give this
pledge of perpetual loyalty and peace. Until it is done, the past, how-
ever much we may desire it, will not be forgotten.** ^

1 McPherson's History of Reconstruction, p. 49. ^ ibij., p. 65.

NATIONAL POLITICS. 233

But hardly was the printer's ink dry on the pages of the
message, when the President began to insist on the immediate
admission of representatives from the Rebel States. In this
demand he was clamorously seconded by the Democrats in Con-
gress, by every Democratic orator and editor in the North, and
by every Rebel of the South. Let it be remembered that the
demand was made for months before even Andrew Johnson
claimed that the Rebellion was legally ended. It was not until
the 2d of April, 1866, that he declared by proclamation that
the Rebellion had ceased in ten of the States ; and even then
he did not consider it ended in Texas. It was not until the
meeting of the Philadelphia Convention, two weeks ago, that
he declared the Rebellion suppressed in that State.

Who were those representatives for whom admittance into
Congress was demanded ? Of the eighty- seven elected from
Rebel States, not ten ever made professions of loyalty. Fifteen
had been generals or colonels in the Rebel army, or members of
the Rebel Congress, or of Secession conventions.

The President did not long leave us in doubt. In his address
to a Rebel delegation from Virginia, on the loth of February,
1866, he intimated his purpose of uniting with them, and with
them sweeping round the circle of the Union, and putting down
certain Radicals, whose policy he denounced as " a rebellion at
the other end of the line." On the 22d of February, he ad-
dressed a vast concourse of Northern Democrats, of Rebels in
Confederate gray, and of Secession sympathizers who had never
been out of their holes to bask in the sunshine of Presidential
favor since Buchanan betrayed his country, all of whom had
assembled to thank him for having refused to give military pro-
tection to the frecdmen of the South. His utterances in that
speech are only too well remembered ; I shall not repeat them
here.

Congress then undertook to extend the protection of the civil
courts over the black loyalists. The President refused his sig-
nature, but your loyal representatives were able to pass it over
his head. About the same time the men of Connecticut were
struggling to elect, as their Governor, a gallant soldier who had
fought for the Union with distinguished honor from the begin-
ning to the end of the war. He was opposed by the whole
strength of that Rebel-loving Democracy, headed by Eaton and
Toucey, whose " bad eminence " is a part of the history of the

234 NATIONAL POLITICS.

Rebellion. A Democratic member of the Thirty-eighth Con-
gress was their candidate for Governor, and Andrew Johnson
threw the weight of his great patronage into the scale, recom-
mended the Federal office-holders to work for English, and
sent a score of his new-found friends from Washington to
urge the people to defeat the Union general. Thanks to the
loyalty of the people of Connecticut, they were able to defeat
both President and Democracy, and General Hawley was made
Governor by a few hundred votes.

The true men of the Cabinet still remained in their places, in
the faint hope that he might yet come back to the party. But
Andrew Johnson was content with no half-way measure. He
resolved on nothing less than the defeat and overthrow of the
Union party. By the aid of a Senator and an ex-Governor of
Wisconsin,^ who had been repudiated by the loyal men of the
State, a call was issued on the 27th of June for a general con-
vention of those who would indorse the President, to meet in
Philadelphia on the i6th of August. This call was indorsed by
the forty-five Democratic members of Congress, including such
patriots as Garrett Davis of Kentucky, Ross of Illinois, Rogers
of New Jersey, and Finck and Le Blond of Ohio. When the
Cabinet officers were asked to join in the movement, Dennison,
Harlan, and Speed responded by denouncing the convention,
and sending in their resignations.

The convention assembled in full force, and under rules as
rigid and with order and harmony as perfect as ever obtained
under the discipline of the Ohio penitentiary, it has given us
the results of its labors in a decalogue of ** principles " and an
address of four newspaper columns, which must now be re-
garded as the latest version of the President's Rebel Democratic
policy. To understand the policy which the nation is now in-
vited to adopt, it will be necessary to examine somewhat the
parties that composed and the purposes which inspired the Phil-
adelphia Convention. Three classes made up the assemblage.

First, the unwashed, unanointed, unforgiven, unrepentant, un-
hung Rebels of the South. They were represented by such
politicians as the Rebel Vice-President, lately called from the
casements of Fort Warren by his admiring constituents, to rep-
resent them in the Senate of the United States; by such gallant
generals as Dick Taylor, who, when his brigade had captured in

1 J. R. Doolittle and A. W. RandaH.

NATIONAL POLITICS. 235

battle seven Union men that had escaped the rebel conscription
in Louisiana, and had joined a Vermont regiment to fight for
the Union, compelled them to dig their own graves, and then
ordered them shot in his presence ; by such clergymen as the
Rev. Jesse B. Ferguson, who, years ago (possibly in antici-
pation of the wants of his brother Champ, lately hanged in
Nashville for twenty Union murders) proclaimed a post 7uoricm
gospel, glad tidings for the dead and damned, — who gave the
weight of his ministerial character to aid in the destruction of
the Union, and now speaks touchingly of the " lost cause " ; and
last, but not least, by Governor Orr, who taught the blessed les-
son that, if South Carolina would join the arm-in-arm embrace
of Massachusetts, she must first slaughter twenty-five thousand
sons of the Bay State. This first class formed the great, dumb,
heroic element of the convention.

The second class was the dishonored, depraved, defeated
remnant of Northern Democracy. The divine Fernando, the
sainted martyr Vallandigham, the meek-eyed Ryndcrs, and the
patriotic H. Clay Dean were there, and their past distinguished
services in the cause of their country were equalled only by the
self-sacrificing spirit by which they preserved the harmony of
the convention. The part played by the Democracy in the con-
vention was a humble one. They could not have looked upon
their brother delegates from the South without feelings of rev-
erence and admiration for the heroism wliich led them to do
battle in the field to sustain a cause for which they themselves
had dared to do no more than speak and vote and pray.

Third, last and least, were all the apostate Union men who
hunger and thirst after office and the spoils thereof, — who
greedily gather up the crumbs that fall from the political
table. This class was not the Lazarus of the convention, for
though the Democracy did not hesitate to lick their sores
and make them the chief managers, they still lacked the piety
of the Jew. They are paupers, disinherited by the party of
freedom, and are now begging their political bread from door
to door. There were men whose presence in that convention
was a painful surprise to their Union friends; men of whom
higher and nobler things were expected ; men who had ser\ed
with honor in the army of the Union. Let us hope that, when
they see the company into which they have fallen, they will re-
member the holy cause for which they have fought, and retrace

236 NATIONAL POLITICS.

their unfortunate steps. Such was the convention and such the
men by whom and through whom the President proposes to
settle the great questions now pending before the nation.

And now let us examine its doctrines. The leading thought
which inspired all the declarations of the convention was uttered
by Alexander H. Stephens, late Vice-President of the Confeder-
acy, and by Thomas Ewing, Vice-President of the Philadelphia
Convention. Mr. Stephens said, in his evidence before a commit-
tee of Congress, given three months ago : " Georgia will accept
no conditions of restoration. She claims to come back with her
privilege of representation unimpaired." While the Philadelphia
Convention was assembling, Mr. Ewing said : ** Even in the heat
and violence of the Rebellion, the States in which Rebel violence
most prevailed were each and all of them, as States, entitled to
their representation in the two Houses of Congress." This, I
say, was the central thought in the convention, and even the
accomplished acrobat of the New York Times, though he waded
knee-deep in words through his four-column address, was not
able to sink it out of sight. In their ** declaration of principles"
it is expressly affirmed that the war " left the rights and author-
ity of the States free and unimpaired ; that neither Congress nor
the President has any power to question their right to represen-
tation." Planting themselves on this doctrine, they ask that the
people elect to the Fortieth Congress only those who acknowl-
edge the unqualified right of the Rebel States to immediate
representation. They also ask the President to use his vast
official patronage to secure this result.

F'reighted with its proceedings, a committee of this mongrel
convention repaired to Washington, and in the east room of
the White House enacted the farce of delivering them to the
President. He indorsed the doctrines of the convention, and
then gave utterance to a sentiment so reckless and revolutionary
as to create the profoundest alarm among loyal men. The
Democratic and Rebel journals have for months been denoun-
cing Congress as an illegal body, a revolutionary rump, and have
demanded their dispersion by force. Alexander H. Stephens
expressed the opinion that the acts of this Congress are illegal,
because the Rebel States are not represented. Garrett Davis
expressed the same opinion in the Senate, and appealed to the
President to disperse it and recognize the Rebel and Democratic
members as the Concrress of the United States. But all these

NATIONAL POLITICS. 237

suggestions were regarded as the insane ravings of men blinded
by partisan fury. But here, in a speech made by appointment
to a committee whose plans and purposes he noj only knew,
but had helped to form, Andrew Johnson used this language :
"We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as
it were, a body called, or which assumes to be, the Congress of
the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only a part
of the States." Who is the "government" upon the "verge"
of which the President declares the Congress of the United
States " hangs" as an unlawful appendage? We had supposed
that the government of the United States consisted of the su-
preme power of the people, vested in the legislative, judicial,
and executive departments ; but he speaks of the Thirty-ninth
Congress as a body " called " or " assumed to be the Congress
of the United States." If these words have any meaning, they
mean that the President regards your Congress as an unlawful
assembly; and if he has the courage to act up to his convictions,
he will take the advice of his Rebel and Democratic friends and
disperse it when it again convenes, as he and his Southern allies
dissolved the New Orleans convention in blood. It is possible
that we are to have a rebellion, not " on the other end of the
line," but in the centre, — in the sacred citadel of the nation.
It is possible that he intends to fulfil his promise to make
treason " odious," by making himself the most conspicuous ex-
ample of public treachery. Whatever be the President's mean-
ing, the loyal people will not fail to remind him that he is not
the controller of Congress, but the executor of the laws, and
the same people who elevated him to his high place will, if
justice and liberty require it, let fall on him a bolt of condem-
nation which will settle forever the question that Presidents are
the servants, not the masters, of the American people.

And now let me examine the doctrine of the Philadelphia
Convention, that " the war left the rights and authority of the
Rebel States unimpaired." I meet this proposition with the
undeniable fact, that, when the Confederacy fell, the authority
of the Rebel States was not only " impaired," but utterly over-
thrown. I answer in the words of Andrew Johnson, "The Re-
bellion deprived North Carolina of all civil government " ; and
call attention to the fact, that he had appointed a provisional
government " to aid in rebuilding a State government and re-
storing North Carolina to her constitutional relations to the

238 NATIONAL POLITICS.

Union." I deny the assertion that representation is an inalien-
able right I repudiate the atrocious doctrine that Rebels in
arms are entitled to a voice in the government which they are
fighting at the same time to destroy. While the Rebel army
was in winter quarters recruiting for the next campaign, Lee
and Johnston, Breckinridge and Bragg, Taylor and Forrest,
might have taken seats in Congress, or if not these, then others
who had never been brave enough to take such public part in
the Rebellion as to prevent their taking the test oath; and
then this might have added enough votes to the Democratic
strength in the Thirty-eighth Congress to control the action of
that body, and assure the success of the Rebellion.

I do not adopt the doctrine that the Rebel States were out
of the* Union; but I hold, in the language of Abraham Lincoln,
that " by the Rebellion they destroyed their practical relations
to the Union." They did not relieve themselves from their ob-
ligations to the Union, but by treason and war they forfeited
their rights to life and property. It was for the victorious
government to say what mercy should be extended, what rights
should be restored.

It is the duty of the Congress of the United States, enjoined
by the Constitution, " to guarantee to every State in this Union
a republican form of government." For the correctness of this
position, I appeal to the solemn decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of the Dorr rebellion, in 1842.

" Under this article of the Constitution, it rests with Congress to de-
cide what government is the established one in a State. For as the
United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress
must necessarily decide what government is established in the State be-
fore it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the
Senators and Representatives of a State are admitted into the councils
of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are
appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper
constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other de-
partment of the government Unquestionably, a military govern-
ment, cstv'il)lishod as the permanent government of the State, would not
be a rei;)ublican government, and it would be the duty of Congress to
overthrow it." ^

I answer the doctrine of the Philadelphia Convention by the
fact that the President demanded three preliminary conditions

1 7 Howard, 42, 45.

NATIONAL POLITICS, 239

as indispensable to his recognition of the Rebel States to repre-
sentation in Congress. He demanded, —

1st. That these States should declare all their acts of Seces-
sion void from the beginning.

2d. That they should ratify the Constitutional Amendment
abolishing slavery.

3d. That they should repudiate all their debts contracted to
support the Rebellion.

The Philadelphia Convention says that representation is an
inalienable right, which the war did not impair. If this be true,
the President is condemned for imposing conditions.

But it may be claimed that the three conditions have been

complied with, that State governments have been established in

all the eleven States, and that Congress should have recognized

the fact I answer that, with the single exception of Tennessee,

not one of the constitutions of these States has been ratified

by the people of the States, or even submitted to them. Can

^at be called a republican government of a State which was

framed by a convention of pardoned Rebels under the dicta-

^^on of a military governor and the commander-in-chief of the

^'"rnies of the United States? But even if these governments

^*'ore lawful and republican in every respect, have the condi-

^'^^ns which the President demanded been so secured as to be-

c^rne *' irreversible guaranties"?

It is said that the legislatures have repudiated the Rebel

"^VdIs. May they not, a year hence, repeal the acts of repu-

^io^tion? It is said that the Civil Rights Bill is now a law,

^^d will give the freedmen adequate protection. Who docs not

^How that the President who vetoed, and his Democratic allies

^^'bo voted against the bill, will hasten to repeal it if they ever

regain the power in Congress? We will accept no securities

^vhich are based solely on the promises of perjured traitors. We

will accept as the basis of our future peace no mere acts or

resolves of Rebel convocations or Rebel legislatures. The

guaranties which the loyal millions of the republic demand

as conditions of restoration must be lifted above the reach

of traitors and Rebel States, and imbedded forever in the

imperishable bulwarks of the Constitution ; therefore, their

loyal representatives in the Thirty-ninth Congress proposed

an amendment to the Constitution, which, adopted by three

fourths of the States, will make liberty and union secure for

240 ' NATIONAL POLITICS,

the future. They have proposed that it shall be a part of the
Constitution, —

1st. That no State shall deny any person within its jurisdic-
tion the equal protection of the laws.

2d. That the representation of any State in Congress shall
be determined by the ratio which the male inhabitants of sucli
State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United
States, who are entitled by the laws thereof to vote, bears to
the whole number of such citizens in the State. So that just in
proportion as the right of suffrage is extended to the male citi-
zens twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States,
or is restricted, shall the representation be increased or dimin-
ished.

3d. That no person shall hold any office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any State, who, having pre-
viously taken an oath as an officer of the United States, or a
legislative, executive, or judicial officer of a State, to support
the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or com-
fort to the enemies thereof; but Congress may, by a vote of
two thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4th. The public debt of the United States shall never be re-
pudiated, and the Rebel debt shall never be paid.

5th. Congress shall have power to enforce these provisions
by appropriate legislation.

These propositions appeal to the common and moral sense
of the nation, as every way worthy to become a part of our fun-
damental law. They are conditions with which any State lately
in rebellion can comply without humiliation or disgrace; which
no State, if sincere in its professions of returning loyalty, would
hesitate to adopt. These conditions were cheerfully adopted b)*
the loyal men of Tennessee, though the President, seconded by
the Rebels in that State, made every possible eftbrt to prevent
it, and Congress immediately declared that State entitled to
representation, and the members elect were admitted to their
seats. These conditions embraced in the Constitutional Amend-
ment, and proposed to the late Rebel States, form the Congres-
sional policy. Whenever any other of the sinful eleven complies
with the same conditions, it can come in as did Tennessee.

And now, fellow-citizens, the two policies are before you. It
is for you to determine which shall be adopted as the basis of

NATIONAL POLITICS. 241

restoration and peace. In the settlement of these great issues,
you must vote with one of two parties, for there can be no third
party. The President has joined the Democratic party, and
that has joined with the Rebels of the South. The great Union
party and its glorious army kept the two parties apart for four
years and a half; we fired bullets to the front and ballots to the
rear; we conquered them both in the field and at the polls;
but now that our army is withdrawn, the two wings are reunited.
They joined in Philadelphia, and Andrew Johnson is their leader.
The great Union party now stands face to face with the motley
crew. With which will you cast in your lot, fellow-citizens?

Remember the noble history of the Union party. No party
ever had so proud a record. The Union party saved the repub-
lic from the most powerful and bloody conspiracy ever formed
since Satan fell from heaven. It broke the shackles from the
limbs of four million slaves, and redeemed the fair fame of the
nation. It carried its arms to victory on a thousand battle-
fields. It scattered every army that bore a Rebel banner. It
has enrolled among its members the old Republican party of
freedom; all the loyal Democrats who followed pouglas, or
loved their country more than their party ; all the soldiers who
suflfered and conquered. The tvvo hundred and fifty thousand
heroes who fell on the field of honor were Union men, and,
could they rise from their bloody graves to-day, would vote
with the Union party.

The Democratic party is composed of all who conspired to
destroy the republic, and of all those who fought to make
treason triumphant. It broke ten thousand oaths, and to its
perjury added murder, starvation, and assassination. It de-
clared through its mouthpieces in Ohio, in 1861, that if the
Union men of Ohio should ever attempt to enter a South-
ern State to suppress the Rebellion by arms, they must first
pass over the dead bodies of two hundred thousand Ohio
Democrats. In the mid-fury of the struggle it declared the
war a failure, and demanded a cessation of hostilities. In the
Democratic party is enrolled every man who led a Rebel army
or voluntarily carried a Rebel musket ; every man who resisted
the draft, who called the Union soldiers ** Lincoln's hirelings,"
" negro worshippers," or any other vile name. Booth, Wirz,
Harold, and Payne were Democrats. Every Rebel guerilla and
jay hawker, every man who ran to Canada to avoid the draft,

VOL. L 16

242 NATIONAL POLITICS.

eveiy bounty-jumper, every deserter, every cowardly sneak that
ran from danger and disgraced his flag, every man who loves
slavery and hates liberty, every man who helped massacre loyal
negroes at Fort Pillow, or loyal whites at New Orleans, every
Knight of the Golden Circle, every incendiary who helped burn
Northern steamboats and Northern hotels, and every villain, of
whatever name or crime, who loves power more than justice,
slavery more than freedom, is a Democrat and an indorser of
Andrew Johnson.

Fellow-citizens, I cannot doubt the issue of such a contest.
I have boundless faith in the lo3ral people, and I beseech you,
by all the proud achievements of the past five years, by the
immortal memories of the heroic dead, by the love you bore to
the starved and slaughtered thousands who perished for their
country and are sleeping in unknown graves, by all the high
and holy considerations of loyalty, justice, and truth, to pause
not in the work you have begun till the Union, crowned with
victory and established by justice, shall enter upon its high
career of freedom and peace.

RECONSTRUCTION.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON

VARIOUS OCCASIONS.

The scheme of Reconstruction proposed by the joint committee of the
two houses consisted of the Fourteenth Amendment, and two bills, enti-
tled, " A Bill to provide for restoring the States lately in Insurrection to
their full Political Rights," and " A Bill declaring certain Persons ineli-
gible to Office under the Government of the United States." The first
of these bills proposed that whenever the Fourteenth Amendment should
become part of the Constitution of the United States, and any State lately
in insurrection should have ratified the same, and should have modified
its Constitution and laws in conformity therewith, the Senators and Rep-
resentatives from such State, if found duly elected and qualified, might
after having taken the required oaths of office, be admitted into Congress
as such. The other bill requires no analysis. Neither one of these bills
was voted upon. Accordingly, the Fourteenth Amendment alone was the
Congressional plan of reconstruction, in 1866 ; and, as Mr. Garfield states
in several of his speeches, the State political campaigns of that year were
conducted by the Republicans upon that platform.

In the mean time the Amendment had gone to the States for their
action. When Congress met in December, 1866, this was the view pre-
sented : all of the Rebel States but Tennessee had rejected the Amend-
ment ; Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky had likewise rejected it ;
twenty-one States had ratified it, and three had taken no action. The
States lately in rebellion took their action, as Mr. Garfield says more than
once, under the lead of President Johnson, and by the consent of the
Democratic party. More than a year before, the States had been " re-
constructed '* according to the ideas of the President, and fully organized
and equipped. State governments were now in existence and in opera-
tion in all those States.

ITie next step that the Republicans took was to bring forward and
carry through Congress the so-called " Military Reconstruction Meas-
ures " ; namely, " An Act to provide for the more efficient Government
of the Rebel States," March 2, 1867, and the "Supplemental Recon-

244 RECONSTRUCTION.

struction Act," March 23, 1867. These acts, both of which were carried
over the President's veto, swept away the so-called State governments in
the ten States, divided them up into military districts, each under a gen-
eral of the United States army, established a military government, and
made the restoration of the States conditional upon the ratification of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and the acceptance, so far as the ten States
were concerned, of negro suffrage. These acts, together with the various
supplemental acts passed from time to time, contain the plan upon which
the reconstruction of the ten States was finally effected.

The Reconstruction Act proper, March 2, 1867, entitled, "An Act to
provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States," having
declared in its preamble that " no legal State government, or adequate
protection for life or property, now exists in the Rebel States of Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisi-
ana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas," and that " it is necessary that peace
and good order should be enforced in said States until loyal and republi-
can State governments can be legally established," went on to enact :
(i.) "That said Rebel States shall be divided into [five] military dis-
tricts and made subject to the military authority of the United States."
(2.) That the President shall "assign to the command of each of said
districts an officer of the army not below the rank of brigadier-gen-
eral," to be supported by a sufficient military force. (3.) That it shall
be the duty of said officer " to protect all persons in their rights of per-
son and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence," etc.
(4.) That all persons put under mihtary arrest shall " be tried without
unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment be inflicted."
(5.) "That when the people of any one of said Rebel States shall have
formed a constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution
of the United States in all respects, .... and when such constitution
shall be ratified, .... and when such constitution shall have been sub-
mitted to Congress for examination and approval, and Congress shall
have approved the same, and when said State, by a vote of its legislature
elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to
the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Con-
gress, and known as Article Fourteen, and when said article shall have
become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall
be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators and
Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oaths pre-
scribed by law, and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this
act shall be inoperative in said State." (6.) " That until the people of
said Rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Con-
gress of the United States, any civil governments which may exist therein
shall be deemed provisional only." Such was the framework of this law :
the provisions concerning the qualifications of delegates and of electors

RECONSTRUCTION. 245

for delegates to the State conventions will be given after an analysis of the
act of March 27.

The Supplemental Act prescribed the minor steps to be taken by the
States in carrying out the plan, (i.) That by September i, 1867, the gen-
eral commanding iti any district shall cause the qualified voters in the
States composing his district to be registered. (2.) That in each State,
after thirty days' public notice, "an election shall be held of delegates to
a convention for the purpose of establishing a constitution and civil gov-
ernment for such State loyal to the Union." (3.) That the question of
holding a convention, as well as the election of delegates, shall be submit-
ted to the registered voters, and that a majority of those voting 'shall de-
cide whether a convention shall be called or not, " Provided^ that such
convention shall not be held unless a majority of all such registered voters
shall have voted on the question of holding such convention." (4.) That
if the vote be in the affirmative, the commanding general shall call the
delegates together in convention within sixty days after the election, and
said convention shall proceed to frame a constitution in harmony with
the Reconstruction Acts, which constitution shall be submitted to the
registered voters aforesaid for ratification. (5.) That if the constitution
shall be ratified by a majority of those voting, " at least one half of all
the registered voters voting upon the question of such ratification," said
constitution shall be forwarded to the President of the United States, to
be by him laid before Congress. (6.) That elections to carry out the
act of March 2, 1867, shall be by ballot.

These were the cardinal features of the Supplemental Act. The other
features need not be mentioned, further than to say that the whole ma-
chinery of conducting the elections — boards of registry, judges of elec-
tions, canvassing, and returns — was in the sole control of the general
commanding. There was considerable further supplementary legislation
on these subjects, partly to make plain what was obscure, partly to meet
new situations. For instance, it having been found difficult in some
cases to obtain the vote required on the question of calling a convention,
it was provided, March 11, 1868, that this question should "be decided
by a majority of the votes actually cast."

Such was the general reconstruction scheme as laid down in the Re-
construction Acts. It is necessary now to go back and inquire how these
acts constituted the State conventions.

First, the Fourteenth Amendment, together with the act of March 2,
fixed the qualifications of delegates to the constitutional convention.
Section 3 of the amendment provided : " No person shaU be a Senator
or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-President,
or hold any office, civil or militar\', under the United States, or under any
State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or
as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature.

246 RECONSTRUCTION.

or as an executive or judicial officer of any State^ to support the Consti-
tution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But
Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disa-
bility." And the act provided, " That no person excluded from the privi-
lege of holding office by said proposed amendment to the Constitution of
the United States shall be eligible to election as a member of the conven-
tion to frame a constitution for any of said Rebel States, nor shall any
such person vote for members of such convention."

Second, the act of March 2, 1867, fixed the qualifications of electors
for delegates to the conventions. The constitution in any State was to
be '' framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of
said State twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or
previous condition, who have been resident in said State for one year
previous to the day of such election, except such as may be disfranchised
for participation in the Rebellion, or for felony at common law." Fur-
ther, the classes described in the third section of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment were disfranchised so far as these elections for delegates were
concerned : '* Nor shall any such person vote for members of such con-
vention." They could be neither delegates nor electors of delegates.
Still further, the commanding general in each district was required by
the Supplemental Act of March 27, 1867, to '' cause a registration to be
made of the male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age
and upwards, resident in each county or parish of the State or States in-
cluded in his district, which registration should include only those persons
who are qualified to vote for delegates " by the act of March 2, " and
who shall have taken and subscribed the following oath or affirmation :

' I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm), in the presence of Almighty

God, that I am a citizen of the State of ; that I have resided in

said State for months next preceding this day, and now reside in the

county of , or the parish of , in said State (as the case may be) ;

that I am twenty-one years old ; that I have not been disfranchised for
participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States, nor for
felony committed against the laws of any State or of the United States ; that
I have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any exec-
utive or judicial office in any State and afterwards engaged in insurrec-
tion or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Con-
gress of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of
any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and after-
wards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support
the Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will, to the

RECONSTRUCTION. 247

best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so help me God.* " Again,
according to the Supplemental Act, Section 4, only qualified electors for
convention delegates could vote on the question of ratification, when the
constitution was submitted to the people. " Said constitution shall be
submitted by the convention for ratification to the persons registered
under the provisions of this act, at an election to be conducted by the
officers or persons appointed or to be appointed by the commanding
general, or hereinbefore provided," etc.

Third, the care of Congress did not stop even here. The act of March 2
expressly stipulated that the constitution framed in any State " shall pro-
vide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as
have the qualifications herein stated for electors of delegates." (Sec. 5.)
The basis of suffrage could be widened but not narrowed. More persons
could be allowed to vote, but those now allowed could not be denied.
The disfranchising features of the Reconstruction Acts need not be con-
tinued, but the grant of the ballot to non-disfiranchised male citizens
" twenty-one years old and upwards, of whatever race, color, or previous
condition," could not be withdrawn. No one can mistake the meaning
of this clause : Congress had now granted the elective franchise to the
negro, and was determined that neither State convention nor State legis-
lature should work an exclusion. Until a State should grant the ballot to
the freedmen, it would not be admitted to representation in Congress, and
would not be held reconstructed. But beyond all this, the acts to admit
the States to representation in Congress (see June 22 and June 25, 1868)
imposed upon them " the fundamental condition," that the constitution
of no one of them " should ever be so changed as to undo what had been
done in harmony with the above-recited provisions in respect to making
the suffrage independent of race, color, or previous condition." Beyond
this, it was impossible that national legislation should go. In the Rebel
States, therefore, there was no need of the Fifteenth Amendment, so far as
gaining the suffrage of the black man was concerned. Nor was there any
need, for this purpose, of the second section of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment, which looked to gaining the suffrage by indirection. Hence, from
this point of view, the Fifteenth Amendment was superior to the Four-
teenth and to the Reconstruction Acts in these particulars. The first
put in the Constitution what the last put only in a simple statute ; the
first applied to all the States, the last only to those named jn the pream-
ble of the Reconstruction Act ; the first did openly and directly what the
last did in a roundabout manner. Except this guaranty to the colored
man, the State conventions and legislatures were to manage the suffrage in
their own way. Here it should be added that Congress paid no atten-
tion to President Johnson, who all the time was issuing proclamations of
amnesty, and granting pardons in harmony with his proclamation of May
29, 1865. It should also be observed, that the disabilities imposed by the

248 RECONSTRUCTION.

Fourteenth Amendment could be removed only by the national legisla-
ture. " But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each house, remove
such disability."

At various stages of the reconstruction legislation, Mr. Garfield made
the remarks that are here brought together. On the 8th of February,
1867, he spoke as follows : —

MR. SPEAKER, — In the short time allowed me I can say
very little. But I desire to call the attention of the
House to two or three points which, in my judgment, stand out
prominently, and which should control our action upon this
measure.

And, first, I call attention to the fact that, from the collapse
of the Rebellion to the present hour, the Congress of the United
States has undertaken to restore the States lately in rebellion
by co-operation with their people, and that our efforts in that
direction have proved a complete and disastrous failure. We
commenced, sir, by waiving nine tenths of all the powers we had
over these people, and adopting a policy most merciful and
magnanimous. It was clearly the right of the victorious gov-
ernment to indict, try, convict, and hang every rebel traitor in
the South for his bloody conspiracy against the republic. In
accordance with a law passed by the first Congress that met
under the Constitution, and approved by Washington, wc might
have punished with death by hanging every Rebel of the South.
We might have confiscated the last dollar of the last Rebel to
aid in paying the cost of the war. Or, adopting a more merci-
ful policy, we might have declared that no man who voluntarily
went into the Rebellion should ever again enjoy the rights of a
citizen of the United States. They forfeited every right of citi-
zenship by becoming traitors and public enemies. What the
conquering sovereign would do with them was for Congress to
declare.

Now, with all these powers in its hands. Congress resolved to
do nothing for vengeance, but everything for liberty and safety.
The representatives of the nation said to the people of the
South, " Join with us in giving liberty and justice to that race
which you have so long outraged, make it safe for free loyal
men to live among you, bow to the authority of our common
country, and we will forgive the carnage, the desolation, the
losses, and the unutterable woes you have brought upon the

RECONSTRUCTION, 249

nation, and you shall come back to your places in the Union
with no other personal disability than this, — that your leaders
shall not again rule us except by the consent of two thirds of
both houses of Congress." That was the proposition which this
Congress submitted at its last session ; and I am here to affirm
to-day that so magnanimous, so merciful a proposition has never
been submitted by a sovereignty to rebels since the day when
God offered forgiveness to the fallen sons of men.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not come up to the full
height of the great occasion ; it did not meet all that I desired
in the way of guaranties to liberty; but if all the Rebel States
had adopted it as Tennessee did, I should have felt bound to let
them in on the terms prescribed for Tennessee. I have also
been in favor of waiting, to give them full time to deliberate and
act. They have deliberated ; they have acted ; the last one of
the sinful ten has at last, with contempt and scorn, flung back
into our teeth the magnanimous offer of a generous nation ;
and it is now our turn to act. They would not co-operate
with us in rebuilding what they destroyed; we must remove
the rubbish and rebuild from the bottom. Whether they are
willing or not, we must compel obedience to the Union, and
demand protection for its humblest citizen wherever the flag
floats. We must so exert the power of the nation that it shall
be deemed both safe and honorable to have been loyal in the
midst of treason. We must see to it that the frightful carnival
of blood now raging in the South shall continue no longer. We
must make it possible for the humblest citizen of the United
States — from whatever State he may come — to travel in safety
from the Ohio River to the Gulf. In short, we must plant lib-
erty on the ruins of slavery, and establish law and peace where
anarchy and violence now reign. I believe, sir, the time has
come when we must lay the heavy hand of military author-
ity upon these Rebel communities, and hold them in its grasp
till their madness is past, and until, clothed and in their right
minds, they come bowing to the authority of the Union, and
taking their places loyally in the family circle of the States.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this is a severe and strin-
gent measure. I do not hesitate to say that I give my assent
to its main features with many misgivings. I am not unmind-
ful of the grave suggestions of the gentleman from New York,^

1 Mr. Raymond.

2 50 RECONSTR UCTION.

in reference to the history of such legislation in other coun-
tries and other ages ; I remember, too, that upon the walls of
imperial Rome a Praetorian guard announced that the world was
for sale, and that the legions knocked down the imperial purple
to the highest bidder ; but I beg to remind the gentleman that
this is not a proposition to commit the liberties of the republic
into the hands of the military ; it is a new article of war, com-
manding the army to return to its work of putting down the
Rebellion, by maintaining the honor and keeping the peace
of the nation. If the officers of our army should need such a
suggestion, let them remember that no people on earth have
shown themselves so able to pull down their idols as the Amer-
ican people. However much honored and beloved a man may
be, if the day ever comes when he shows himself untrue to lib-
erty, they will pluck him out of their very hearts, and trample
him indignantly under their feet. We have seen this in the mil-
itary history of the last five years, and in the political history of
the last campaign.

Now, we propose for a short 'time to assign our army to this
duty for specific and beneficent purposes ; namely, to keep the
peace until we can exercise the high functions enjoined upon us
in the Constitution, of giving to these States republican gov-
ernments based upon the will of the whole loyal people. The
generals of our army enjoy in a wonderful degree the confi-
dence of the nation ; but if, for any cause, the most honored
among them should lay his hands unlawfully upon the liberty
of the humblest citizen, he would be trampled under the feet of
millions of indignant freemen. We are not, as some gentlemen
seem to suppose, stretching out helpless hands to the army for
aid ; we are commanding them, as public servants, to do this
work in the interest of liberty.

I have spoken only of the general purpose of this bill. I
now desire to say that I am not satisfied with the manner in
which it is proposed to pass it through this House. I demand
that it be opened for amendment, as well as for discussion. I
will not consent that any one man or committee in this House
shall frame a bill of this importance, and compel me to vote for
or against it, without an opportunity to suggest amendments to
its provisions. However unimportant my own opinions may
be, other men shall not do my thinking for me. There are
some words which I want stricken out of this bill, and some

RECONSTR UCTION. 2$ I

limitations I want added. I at least shall ask that they be con-
sidered. I trust the gentleman who has the bill in charge will
allow a full opportunity for amendment, and that the bill, prop-
erly guarded, may become a law.

On the 12th of February, Mr. Garfield spoke as follows, in reply to
Mr. Harding, of Kentucky : —

Mr. Speaker, — I would not ask the further attention of the
House upon this subject, were it not that I find myself very se-
riously misrepresented, here and elsewhere, in reference to my
remarks on Friday last. I would not have the worst Rebel in
the world suppose me capable of anything like malignity to-
ward even him. I therefore take this occasion to contradict the
representation made by the gentleman from Kentucky, (as I am
informed, for I did not hear him myself,) that I had declared
that, though I had hitherto been in favor of magnanimity to-
ward the people of the South, I was now in favor of enforcing
a bloodthirsty policy against them. I have never uttered such
a sentiment. All that I did say was said directly and explicitly
upon the single question of the Fourteenth Amendment as a
basis of restoration. I did say the other day, and I say now,
that if the amendment proposed at the last session of Con-
gress had been ratified by all the States lately in rebellion, in
the same way that Tennessee ratified it, and if those States
had done all the other things that Tennessee did, I should
have felt myself morally bound, (though it fell very far short
of full justice and of my own views of good statesmanship,)
and I believed the Thirty-ninth Congress would have been mor-
ally bound, to admit every one of the Rebel States on the same
terms.

Many members know that I have been opposed to taking fur-
ther decisive action until every Rebel State had had full oppor-
tunity to act upon the Amendment. Now that they have all
rejected it, I consider their action as final, and say, as I said
on Friday last, that that offer, as a basis of reconstruction, is
forever closed so far as my vote is concerned. The time has
come when we must protect the loyal men of the South ; the
time has come when fruitless magnanimity to rebels is cruelty

252 RECONSTRUCTION.

to our friends. No other victorious nation has ever so neglected
its supporters. For a quarter of a century the British govern-
ment gave special protection to the Tories of the American
Revolution, paying them fifteen million dollars out of the royal
treasury. What loyal man of any Rebel State, except Tennes-
see, has been honored or defended by the Federal government ?
It is a notorious fact, that it is both honorable and safe in the
South to have been a Rebel, while it is both dangerous and dis-
graceful for a Southerner to have been loyal to the Union.
Loyal men are every day perishing as unavenged victims of
Rebel malignity. I desire to say, also, that I am in favor of
placing these States under military jurisdiction only as a tem-
porary measure of protection, until republican governments can
be organized, based upon the will of all the loyal people, with-
out regard to race or color.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Kentucky volun-
teered to read me a lecture on bloodthirstiness, and reminded
me of the sinfulness of human nature as represented in myself,
I will volunteer a few suggestions and reflections to him and the
party with which he acts. I remind the gentleman that his
party and the President who leads it have had it in their power
any day during the last twenty-two months to close the bleed-
ing wounds of this grievous war, and restore the States lately in
rebellion to their proper places in the Union. I tell that gen-
tleman that if, on any one day during the war, he and his party
had risen up and said, honestly and unanimously, "We join the
loyal men of the nation to put down the Rebellion," the war
would not have lasted a twelvemonth. The army never feared
the enemy in its front; it was the enemy in the rear, with their
ballots and plots aj^ainst the Union and their sympathy with the
Rebellion, which continued the war and wasted and desolated
the land with blood and fire. That party is responsible for
more of the carnage of the war than anybody else this side of
the Rebels.

But, sir, the gentleman and his party have made a record
since the war ended. If the Democratic party, with the Pres-
ident at its head, had, on any day since July last, advised the
people of the South to accept the Fourteenth Amendment and
come in as Tennessee did, it would have been done. I have
information from a source entirely reliable, that but little more
than one month ago Alabama was on the eve of accepting that

RECONSTRUCTION. 253

Amendment when a telegram from Washington dissuaded her
from doing so and led her rashly to reject it. Of all men on
earth the gentleman and his party have the least right to preach
the doctrine of mercy to this side of the House. That mercy
which smiles only on murder, treason, and rebellion, and has
only frowns for loyalty and patriotism, becomes the gentleman
and his party.

I cannot agree with all that has just been said by my friends
on this side, that our own party in Congress have been so very
virtuous and true to liberty. I cannot forget that we have
learned very slowly ; I cannot forget that less than four years
ago the proposition to allow negroes any share in putting down
the Rebellion was received with alarm in this hall and even on
this side of the House. I cannot forget that less than five years
ago I received an order from my superior officer in the army
commanding me to search my camp for a fugitive slave, and if
found to deliver him up to a Kentucky captain, who claimed
him as his property ; and I had the honor to be perhaps the
first officer in the army who peremptorily refused to obey such
an order. We were then trying to save the Union without
hurting slavery. I remember, sir, that when we undertook to
agitate in the army the question of putting arms into the hands
of the slaves, it was said, " Such a step will be fatal, it will
alienate half our army and lose us Kentucky." By and by, when
our necessities were imperious, we ventured to let the negro dig
in the trenches, but it would not do to put muskets into his
hands. We ventured to let the negro drive a mule team, but it
would not do to have a white man or a mulatto just in front of
him or behind him ; all must be negroes in that train ; you must
not disgrace a white soldier by putting him in such company.
By and by some one said, " Rebel guerillas may capture the
mules ; so for the sake of the mules let us put a few muskets in
the wagons and let the negroes shoot the guerillas if they come."
So for the sake of the mules wc enlarged the limits of liberty a
little. By and by we allowed the negroes to build fortifications
and armed them to save the earthworks they had made, — not
to do justice to the negro, but to protect the earth he had
thrown up. By and by wc said in this hall that we would arm
the negroes, but they must not be called soldiers nor wear the
national uniform, for that would degrade white soldiers. By
and by we said, " Let them wear the uniform, but they must

254 RECONSTRUCTION.

not receive the pay of soldiers." For six months we did not
pay them enough to feed and clothe them ; and their shattered
regiments came home from South CaroHna in debt to the gov-
ernment for the clothes they wore. It took us two years to
reach a point where we were willing to do the most meagre jus-
tice to the black man, and to recognize the truth that —

" A man's a man for a* that.**

It will not do for our friends on this side to boast even of the
early virtues of the Thirty-ninth Congress. I remember very
well, Mr. Speaker, during the last session, that forty of us tried
to bring the issue of manhood suffrage before Congress. Our
friends said, " You are impracticable ; you will be beaten at the
polls if you go before the people on that issue ; make haste
slowly." Let us not be too proud of what we did at the last
session. For my part, I am heartily ashamed of our short-
comings and the small measure of justice we meted out to our
best friends in the South.

But, sir, the hand of God has been visible in this work, lead-
ing us by degrees out of the blindness of our prejudices to see
that the fortunes of the Republic and the safety of the party of
liberty are inseparably bound up with the rights of the black
man. At last our party must see that, if it would preserve its
political life, or maintain the safety of the Republic, we must
do justice to the humblest man in the nation, whether black or
white. I thank God that to-day we have struck the rock ; we
have planted our feet upon solid earth. Streams of light will
gleam out from the luminous truth embodied in the legislation
of this day. This is the ne plus ultra of reconstruction, and I
hope we shall have the courage to go before our people every-
where with ** This or nothing " for our motto.

Now, sir, as a temporary measure, I give my support to this
military bill, properly restricted. It is severe. It was written
with a steel pen made out of a bayonet ; and bayonets have
done us good service hitherto. All I ask is, that Congress shall
place civil governments before these people of the Rebel States,
and a cordon of bayonets behind them.

RECONSTRUCTION. 255

On the i8th of February, the House having under consideration the
Military Reconstruction Bill, with the Senate amendments, providing for
establishing civil governments in the Rebel States based upon manhood
suf&age, Mr. Garfield spoke as follows : —

Mr. Speaker, — The House will remember that I did what I
could when this bill was first before us to secure an amendment
which would open the way for restoring the Rebel States to
their practical relations to the Union, whenever they should es-
tablish Republican governments based on manhood suflfragc.
By the votes of Democratic members, the Blaine Amendment
failed here, but, by an almost unanimous vote, the Senate have
added some well-considered sections, which effect the same ob-
ject and make the bill more perfect than any yet proposed. It
is not all I could wish, but as we are now within a few hours of
the time when all the legislation of the Thirty-ninth Congress
will be wholly in the power of the President, we are compelled
to accept this or run the risk of getting nothing. Now what
does this bill propose? It lays the hands of the nation upon
the Rebel State governments, and takes the breath of life out of
them. It puts the bayonet at the breast of every Rebel mur-
derer in the South to bring him to justice. It commands the
army to protect the life and property of citizens, whether black
or white. It places in the hands of Congress absolutely and
irrevocably the whole work of reconstruction.

With this thunderbolt in our hands shall we stagger like idiots
under its weight? Have we grasped a weapon which we have
neither the courage nor the wisdom to wield? If I were afraid
of this Congress and the next, — afraid of my shadow, afraid of
myself, — I would declaim against this bill as gentlemen around
me have done. They have spoken vehemently, solemnly, se-
pulchrally, against it, but they have not done us the favor to
quote a line from the bill itself to prove that it has any of the
defects they charge. They tell us it proposes universal amnesty
to Rebels, but I challenge them to find the shadow of that
thought in the bill. They tell us it puts the State governments
into the hands of Rebels. I deny it unless I am a Rebel and
this is a Rebel Congress. They tell us it is a surrender to the
President, because it directs him to detail officers to command
the military districts. Mr. Speaker, I want this Congress to give
its commands to the President. If he refuses to obey, the im-
peachment-hunters need make no further search for cause of

256 RECONSTRUCTION.

action. There may be abundant cause now, but disobedience
to thb order will place it beyond all question, — our duty to im-
peach him will be plain and imperative.

Mr. Speaker, there are some gentiemen here who live in a
world far above my poor comprehension. They dwell with
eagles, — on mountain peaks, — in the region of perpetual frost ;
and in that ethereal air, with purged vision, they discern the lin-
eaments in the face of freedom so much more clearly than I do,
that sometimes when I and other common mortals here have
almost within our reach a measure which we think a great gain
to liberty, they come down and tell us our measure is low and
mean, — a compromise with the enemy and a surrender of lib-
erty. I remember an example of this at the close of the last
session. Many of us had tried in vain to put manhood suffrage
into the Fourteenth Amendment; but all knew that the safety
Qf the nation and the life of the Union party were bound up
in the passage of that Amendment in the shape it finally as-
sumed. At the last moment, when it was known that the
Union party in this body had determined to pass it, the pre-
vious question was withheld to allow these exalted thinkers to
denounce it as an unworthy, unstatesmanlike surrender. But
the House passed it, the Senate concurred, and the people ap-
proved it by the most overwhelming majorities known in our
political history.

The pending measure, Mr. Speaker, goes far beyond the
Fourteenth Amendment, and in addition to other beneficent
provisions it recognizes and secures forever the full political
rights of all loyal men in the Rebel States, without distinction
of race or color. If any gentleman can show me a greater
gain to liberty in the last half-century, he will open a chapter
of history which it has not been my privilege to read. But
these sublime political philosophers regard it as wholly unwor-
thy their high sanction.

Mr. Speaker, some of us are so irreverent as to begin to sus-
pect that the real reason for opposing this bill is to be found in
another direction. The distinguished gentieman from Pennsyl-
vania ^ made a remark this morning which may explain his op-
position. He complained that the Senate had forced upon us
the question of reconstruction, which our bill did not touch.
His course on this measure leads me to suspect that he does

1 Mr. Stevens.

RECONSTR UCTION. 257

not desire to touch the question of reconstruction. For my
part, I desire that these Rebel States shall be restored at the
earliest moment that safety and liberty will allow. The Amer-
ican people desire reconstruction. At the beginning of the war
the fiat of the nation went forth that the Union should not be
destroyed, — that the Rebel States should be brought back to
their places. To this end they fought and suffered ; to this end
they have voted and we have legislated. They demand that we
delay reconstruction until it can be done in the interest of lib-
erty. Beyond that they will tolerate no delay. Such a recon-
struction is provided for in this bill. I therefore give it my
cordial support.

On the 17th of January, 1868, Mr. Garfield made the following re-
marks upon a bill introduced by Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, additional and
supplemental to the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867. The bill
passed the House, but never came to a vote in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, — I shall spend none of the few minutes
given to me in discussing the constitutionality or propriety
of the first section of this bill, which declares that the so-called
State governments in ten of the rebellious States that were set
up by the President without consent of the people thereof, and
without the authority of Congress, are neither republican in
form nor valid in law. Whatever may be the opinions of any
gentlemen here, the doctrine involved in that section was decid-
ed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and that decision was ratified
by the people when the Fortieth Congress was elected. No
political issue was more clearly defined or more decisively set-
tled. Let me remind the House what that issue involved, and
what was decided by the result.

The President and his followers held that, though the Rebel-
lion had overthrown all civil government in the Rebel States,
yet he, as the head of the Federal government, had set up new
governments, which he deemed republican in form, and which
were therefore entitled to representation in Congress. Congress
denied the authority of the President to build State govern-
ments, and claimed that, by the decision of the Supreme Court,
it was made the duty of Congress to provide for carrying into
effect that clause of the Constitution which declares, "The

VOL. I. 17

2S8 RECONSTRUCTION.

United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a re-
publican form of government" Congress decreed that, until
the restoration shall be accomplished, the Rebel States shall be
held in the military grasp of the Republic; and, in order to
restore them at the earliest possible day, a law was passed ena-
bling the loyal people to form governments and build again
where rebellion had destroyed. Congress did not commit itself
to the dogma that those States were out of the Union, but it
proceeded upon the acknowledged fact that their civil govern-
ments were utterly destroyed and should be rebuilt The Con-
gressional plan and the President's plan were placed on trial
before the people in the fall of 1866. That the verdict was
against the Presidential and in favor of the Congressional plan,
is witnessed by the relative strength of the two parties on this
floor to-day. We are here to obey the people who sent us.
The first section of this bill is but a repetition, in clearer lan-
guage, of the law of the Thirty-ninth Congress. For all political
purposes, therefore, the doctrine of the first section is settled,
and the case is closed.

The only feature to which I desire to call the attention of the
House this morning is the second section of the bill. This sec-
tion makes it the duty of the General of the Army to assign
such officers of the army as he may think best to the work of
carrying out the reconstruction law. That work has heretofore
been placed in the hands of the President. Here we are met at
the threshold, by gentlemen on the other side, with the decla-
ration that Congress has no power to assign the General of the
Army and his subordinates to this duty, because of that clause
of the Constitution which makes the President Commander-in-
chief of the Army and Navy. I ask the attention of the House,
for a few moments, to the consideration of this objection.

Under the laws of Great Britain the king is not only Com-
mander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, but is empowered
to make rules and regulations for the government of the land
and naval forces of the realm. He can declare war and con-
clude peace. He is, therefore, in the full sense of the term,
commander-in-chief. The Parliament controls him chiefly by
its right to grant or withhold all supplies for the army and
navy. When our fathers framed the constitution of govern-
ment under which we live, they so far copied the British law
as to declare that the President of the United States should be

RECONSTR UCTION. 259

the Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy ; but they pro-
ceeded to limit and restrict that grant of power by six distinct
clauses in the Constitution, giving six distinct powers to Con-
gress. These clauses are found in the first article, section eighth,
and are as follows : —

" The Congress shall have power ....

" To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water ;

" To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that
use shall be for a longer term than two years ;

" To provide and maintain a navy ;

" To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and
naval forces ;

" To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions ;

" To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the
officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress."

The power, therefore, which is conferred upon the President
by the declaration of the Constitution that he is Commander-in-
chief must always be understood with these limitations. With-
out the authority of Congress there can be no War Department,
no army, no navy. Without the authority of Congress there
can be no general of the army. Without the authority of Con-
gress there can be no officers, high or low, in the army or navy
of the United States. We therefore begin with these constitu-
tional limitations of the President's authority as Commander-in-
chief. Now, how has Congress used its power heretofore in
reference to the army? In 1789, by an act approved August 7,
Congress established a War Department, enacted laws to gov-
ern it, and from time to time thereafter established subordinate
departments and bureaus in that department.

Let it be noticed, also, that another clause of the Constitu-
tion may be applied here. Congress may authorize the heads
of departments to appoint inferior officers. It might have au-
thorized the Secretary of War to appoint every officer of the
army. It can do so now. It is plainly in our power to take
every military appointment from the President, and place it
solely in the hands of the Secretary of War. Congress did not

26o RE CONSTR UCTION.

choose to take that course, but it did establish all the subordi-
nate departments of the government, and prescribes the duties
of officers in those departments.

By an act of Congress, approved May 22, 181 2, the Quarter-
master-General is authorized to appoint barrack-masters. Now,
can the President appoint barrack-masters in contravention of
that law? Congress conferred that power upon the Quarter-
master-General, and the President, though Commander-in-chief,
cannot exercise that function without usurpation. The same
act requires quartermasters to give properly secured bonds be-
fore performing any of the duties of their appointment. Can
the President legally order them to perform such duty before
such bonds are given?

By a law of Congress approved April 10, 1806, it is declared
that " the Judge- Advocate, or some person deputed by him or
by the general or officer commanding the army, detachment, or
garrison, shall prosecute in the name of the United States.'* Can
the President of the United States prosecute an officer or pri-
vate before a court-martial? He cannot, because Congress has
conferred upon a subordinate officer of the army that power,
and the President, though Commander-in-chief, cannot set it
aside.

A friend near me says these are subordinates. I answer, that
the General of the Army of the United States is also a subordi-
nate. He is, to Congress, as subordinate as a judge-advocate, a
quartermaster, or a barrack- master. It makes no difference
how high his rank may be, he is none the less subordinate to
Cojigress. The President is Commander-in-chief, but he must
command in accordance with the Rules and Articles of War, —
the acts of Congress.

I call attention to the oath that every officer and enlisted man
takes before entering the army. It is in these words : '* I do
solemnly swear that I will bear true allegiance to the United
States, .... and will observe and obey the orders of the
President of the United States, and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the
government of the army of the United States." Now, should
the President of the United States give to the humblest officer
of the army an order contrary to the Rules and Articles of War,
or to any law of Congress, the subordinate can peremptorily
refuse to obey, because the order has not been given in ac-

RECONSTR UCTION. 26 1

cordance with the rules and regulations of the power which
commands both him and the President. '

If Congress can make laws assigning special duties to subordi-
nate officers, such as judge-advocates, quartermasters, and bar-
rack-masters, what new doctrine is this that it may not also
assign special duties to the General of the Army? The volumes
of statutes are full of laws of Congress, commanding all classes
of officers to perform all kinds of duties. It is now proposed to
require of the General of the Army the performance of a special
duty, — the duty of directing the operations of that part of the
army which occupies the States lately in rebellion. If the gen-
eral should neglect this duty, the President, as Commander-in-
chief, can call him to account for such neglect, but he cannot
prevent his obedience to the law.

I now come to inquire why this legislation is needed. It is
because this Congress, in its work of restoring to their places
the States lately in rebellion, authorized the President to assign
the officers of the army to the duties prescribed in the law, and
the President has made such use of that authority as to obstruct
and delay the restoration of those States. Without violating
the letter of the law, he has been able, in a great measure, to
hinder its full and efficient execution. His acts and those
of his advisers are to-day the chief obstacles to the prompt
restoration of the Rebel States; and Congress proposes to
remove those obstacles, by transferring this authority to the
hands of one who has shown his loyalty to the country and his
willingness to obey the laws of the Union.

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat the long catalogue of obstaic-
tions which the President has thrown in the way, by virtue of
the power conferred upon him in the reconstruction law of 1867 1
but I will allude to one example where he has found in a major-
general of the army a facile instrument with which more effect-
ually to obstruct the work of reconstruction. This case is all
the more painful, because an otherwise meritorious officer, who
bears honorable scars earned in battle for the Union, has been
made a party to the political madness which has so long marked
the conduct of the President. This general was sent into the
district of Louisiana and Texas with a law of Congress in his
hand, a law that commands him to see that justice is adminis-
tered among the people of that country, and that no pretence of
civil authority shall deter him from performing his duty; and

262 RECONSTRUCTION.

yet we find that officer giving lectures in the form of proclama-
tions and orders on what ought to be the relation between the
civil and military departments of the government. We see him
issuing a general order, in which he declares that the civil power
should not give way before the military. We hear him declaring
that he finds nothing in the laws of Louisiana and Texas to war-
rant his interference in the civil administration of those States.
It is not for him to say which should be first, the civil or the
military authority, in that Rebel community. It is not for him
to search the defunct laws of Louisiana and Texas for a guide
to his conduct. It is for him to execute the laws which he was
sent there to administer. It is for him to aid in building up
civil governments, rather than to prepare himself to be the Presi-
dential candidate of that party which gave him no sympathy
when he was gallantly fighting the battles of the country.

Some of our friends say, since the President is the chief obsta-
cle, remove him by impeachment. As the end is more impor-
tant than the means, so is the rebuilding of law and liberty on
the ruins of anarchy and slavery more important than the im-
peachment of Andrew Johnson. If, by placing the work in
other hands, it can be done more speedily than through the
slow process of impeachment, we shall so much sooner end the
reign of chaos in the South. Let no man suppose that, because
this House did not resolve to proceed .with impeachment, it
will abandon the loyal men of the South to the tender mercies
of Rebels, or to the insane policy of the President and his
party.

Mr. Speaker, the Union party will take no step backward in
this work of reconstruction. The policy inaugurated by the
Thirty-ninth Congress we are now carrying out. The State of
Tennessee has already been restored to its relations to the
Union. Alabama has prepared a constitution, and on the 4th
of February her loyal people will vote to adopt or reject it; and
before the middle of that month I expect to see her repre-
sentatives occupying seats in these halls. Seven of the Rebel
States are now holding conventions and framing constitutions
of government in pursuance of the laws of Congress; and in
the two remaining States, Florida and Texas, elections have been
ordered, and the people will soon vote for or against a conven-
tion. The work is going on; and, if there be no adverse action
to thwart it, before another twelvemonth we shall see most,

RECONSTRUCTION. 263

if not all, of these States completely restored. Who now is
opposing it? Gentlemen upon the other side are manifestly
arrayed with the President in endeavoring to obstruct the work
of reconstruction ; and without charging upon them Rebel sym-
pathies, or imputing to them any improper motives, I do say
that their conduct is pleasing to every unrepentant and un-
hanged traitor in the South. The whole mass of the Rebel
population are in favor of obstructing the reconstruction pol-
icy of Congress. There is not a man who went into rebellion
against the government, not a guerilla who shot down our
wounded soldiers in ambulances, not a man that burned our
cities and steamboats, not a man that starved our prisoners,
not a man who aided in the assassination of our President,
not a Rebel, from one end of the country to the other, who
is not to-day in sympathy with this party in Congress in its
attempts to obstruct and defeat the reconstruction policy of
Congress.

With such a combination against us, does any one suppose
that we can take one step backward, — much less, that we will
permit an officer of our army to fling back in our faces his
contempt of the law, and tell us what policy shall be adopt-
ed? It was reported in the public papers only yesterday, that
the Governor of Texas had informed General Hancock that
murderers in Texas could not be punished by the civil law.
Yet this general sends back word to the Governor of Texas,
that he docs not wish to interfere in any civil matters. Sir, he
was sent down there for the very purpose of interfering in such
matters as the non-punishment of murderers.

The first two paragraphs of Mr. Garfield's remarks on the bill admitting
Georgia to representation in Congress, made in the House, June 24,
1870, are also given.

Mr. Speaker, — I have been a listener for the last two years
to what has been said on the subject of reconstruction, and dur-
ing that time have rarely taken a part in these debates. We
have now reached a critical period in our legislation, when we
are called upon to perform the final act, — to complete, for bet-
ter or for worse, the reconstruction policy of the government.

264 RECONSTRUCTION.

I have followed the remarks of my colleague from Ohio,^ as well
as those of other gentlemen, and I confess that any attempt at
reconciling all we have done on the subject of reconstruction so
as to form consistent precedents for any given theory of legis-
lative action is, to my mind, a failure. There are no theories
for the management of whirlwinds and earthquakes. There are
no precedents for any of the great and sudden evils of society
which are themselves unprecedented.

While on the whole the historian will be able to trace a gen-
eral line of conduct not altogether inconsistent with itself, dur-
ing the last five or six years of our legislation on this subject, I
think he will find many anomalies in the course of that history.
For my part, I have never admitted the doctrine of State sui-
cide. I opposed that doctrine in 1864; I opposed it again in
1866, at a time when it was popular here and in the other end
of the Capitol ; and I am glad to know the settled policy of the
country has at last also condemned it. While we did not as a
nation admit the doctrine that States, by rebellion, could go out
of the Union and set themselves up as independent States ex-
cept by successful revolution, the nation nevertheless held and
asserted that, under the Constitution, we had the amplest power
to coerce by arms, and then to restore to its place in the Union,
any State that chose to destroy its organization, and rebel against
the government of the United States. In the exercise of those
high constitutional functions, we first put down the Rebellion,
and have since been setting up, one by one, the shattered pillars
of these States which the Rebellion attempted to demolish, and
thus to destroy the noble structure of the Union. It is now in
our hands to determine how Georgia, the last of the Rebel
States, shall be restored to her place in the great temple of
States.

1 Mr. Bingham.

COLLEGE EDUCATION.

ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE LITERARY SOCIETIES OF

HIRAM COLLEGE, HIRAM, OHIO.

June 14, 1867.

In the course of the school year 1866-67, the Trustees of the West-
em Reserve Eclectic Institute, at which Mr. Garfield had prepared for
college, of which he was Principal from 1857 to 186 1, and of which he
was now a Trustee, took steps to clothe the institution with the powers
and responsibilities of a college with its present name, Hiram College.
The transition was effected at the close of that year. The occasion was
recognized by the delivery of the following address. The facts now
stated — the change of the character and name of the school, and the
adoption of a new course of study — will explain some of Mr. Garfield's
remarks, especially towards the close of the address.

GENTLEMEN OF the Literary Societies, — I con-
gratulate you on the significant fact, that the questions
which most vitally concern your personal work are at this time
rapidly becoming, indeed have already become, questions of
first importance to the whole nation. In ordinary times, we
could scarcely find two subjects wider apart than the medita-
tions of a schoolboy, when he asks what he shall do with him-
self, and how he shall do it, and the forecastings of a great
nation, when it studies the laws of its own life, and endeavors to
solve the problem of its destiny. But now there is more than a
resemblance between the nation's work and yours. If the two
are not identical, they at least bear the relation of the whole to
a part.

The nation, having passed through the childhood of its his-
tory, and being about to enter upon a new life, based on a fuller
recognition of the rights of manhood, has discovered that liberty

266 COLLEGE EDUCATION,

can be safe only when the suffrage is illuminated by education.
It is now perceived that the life and light of a nation are insep-
arable. Hence the Federal government has established a Na-
tional Department of Education, for the purpose of teaching
young men and women how to be good citizens.

You, young gentlemen, having passed the limits of childhood,
and being about to enter the larger world of manhood, with its
manifold struggles and aspirations, are now confronted with the
question, " What must I do to fit myself most completely, not
for being a citizen merely, but for being all that doth become
a man living in the full light of the Christian civilization of
America? " Your disinthralled and victorious country asks you
to be educated for her sake, and the noblest aspirations of your
being still more imperatively ask it for your own sake. In the
hope that I may aid you in solving some of these questions, I
have chosen for my theme on this occasion, The Course of
Study in American Colleges, and its' Adaptation to the Wants
of our Time.

Before examining any course of study, we should clearly ap-
prehend the objects to be obtained by a liberal education. In
general, it may be said that the purpose of all study is two-
fold,— to discipline our faculties, and to acquire knowledge for
the duties of life. It is happily provided in the constitution of
the human mind, that the labor by which knowledge is acquired
is the only means of disciplining the powers. It may be stated
as a general rule, that if we compel ourselves to learn what we
ought to know, and use it when learned, our discipline will take
care of itself. Let us, then, inquire. What kinds of knowledge
should be the objects of a liberal education?

Without adopting in full the classification of Herbert Spen-
cer,^ it will be sufficiently comprehensive for my present pur-
pose to name the following kinds of knowledge, stated in the
order of their importance: —

First. That knowledge which is necessary for the full devel-
opment of our bodies and the preservation of our health.

Second. The knowledge of those principles by which the
useful arts and industries are carried on and improved.

Third. That knowledge which is necessary to a full compre-
hension of our rights and duties as citizens.

1 Education, Intellectual, Moral, and Physical, Chap. I., ** What Knowledge
is of most Worth ? "

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 267

Fourth. A knowledge of the intellectual, moral, religious,
and aesthetic nature of man, and his relations to nature and civ-
ilization.

Fifth. That special and thorough knowledge which is requi-
site for the particular profession or pursuit which a man may
choose as his life-work after he has completed his college
studies.

In brief, the student should study himself, his relations to
society, to nature, and to art; and above all, in all, and through
all these, he should study the relations of himself, society, na-
ture, and art, to God, the author of them all.

Of course it is not possible, nor is it desirable, to confine the
course of development exclusively to this order ; for truths are
so related and correlated that no department of the realm of
Truth is wholly isolated. We cannot learn much that pertains
to the industry of society, without learning something of the
material world, and the laws which govern it. We cannot study
nature profoundly without bringing ourselves into communion
with the spirit of art, which pervades and fills the universe. But
what I suggest is, that we should make the course of study
conform generally to the order here indicated ; that the student
shall first study what he most needs to know ; that the order of
his needs shall be the order of his work.

Now, it will not be denied that, from the day when the child's
foot first presses the green turf till the day when, an old man,
he is ready to be laid under it, there is not an hour in which he
does not need to know a thousand things in relation to his
body, — what he shall eat, what he shall drink, and wherewithal
he shall be clothed. Unprovided with that instinct which en-
ables the lower animals to reject the noxious and select the
nutritive, man must learn even the most primary truth that
ministers to his self-preservation. If parents were themselves
sufficiently educated, most of this knowledge might be acquired
at the mother's knee ; but, by the strangest perversion and mis-
direction of the educational forces, these most essential elements
of knowledge are more neglected than any other.

School committees would summarily dismiss the teacher who
should have the good sense and courage to spend three days of
each week with her pupils in the fields and woods, teaching
them the names, peculiarities, and uses of rocks, trees, plants,
and flowers, and the beautiful story of the animals, birds, and

1 1 ■;

266

COLLEGE EI

can be safe only when the su
It is now perceived that th
arable. Hence the Fedcr
tional Department of i
young men and woi^

You, young gcntl*
and being about t
manifold stru$r<'-
question, ''VN'

I '

..V, beauty. They will

...;. :hat undefended and

iivsical and intellectual

.^ J Silence, in a vain attempt

V L>rinted page, for six hours

,1 he finished his slaughter of

. ,> jtactice kills by the savagery

for being n
a man 1^^
Amcri
to lv_

\

^>* ■■«.

V ^

\ s »

...^v::cd to study? Besides the mass

..:tv:'i he is compelled to memorize, not

V. ».wcrstands, at eight or ten years of

.. :*'!!j;lish grammar, — one of the most

.:o metaphysical of studies, requiring a

and discipline to master it. Thus are

at worse than squandered — those thrice

> • .v»» '-he child is all ear and eye, when its eager

.^.,.uu*ie curiosity, hungers and thirsts to know the

-w .k >\ v»f the world and its wonderful furniture. We

X xuvvt clamor by cramming its hungry mind with

^^^ empty, meaningless words. It asks for bread,

• a ^tonc. It is to me a perpetual wonder that

. , X ^*\e of knowledge survives the outrages of the

'^ ,..w. li would be foreign to my present purpose to

»:;thei the subject of primary education ; but it is wor-

, , .Mv»knnulest thought, for ** out of it arc the issues of

I 'KiL man will be a benefactor of his race who shall teach

>,u iv* manage rightly the first years of a child's education.

^v, v».ie» vleelare that no child of mine shall ever be compelled

. x,.:J\ vMK* hour, or to learn even the English alphabet, before

V h^i.-* deposited under his skin at least seven years of muscle

\\ hat ate our seminaries and colleges accomplishing in the

wax v»J teaching the laws of life and physical well-being? I

^hvHild scarcely wrong them were I to answer, Nothing, — abso-

Uilclv n\»thing. The few recitations which some of the colleges

j^^^iiio in anatomy and physiology unfold but the alphabet of

\h\vie sciences. The emphasis of college culture does not fall

th**ri*. I'he graduate has learned the Latin of the old maxim,

^ms sana in corpore sano ; but how to strengthen the mind by

iV preservation of the body, he has never learned. He can

^iJl you in Xenophon's best Attic Greek, that Apollo flayed

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 269

the unhappy Marsyas, and hanged up his skin as a trophy; but
he has never examined the wonderful texture of his own skin,
or the laws by which he may preserve it. He would blush, were
he to mistake the place of a Greek accent, or put the ictus on
the second syllable of ^olus; but the whole circle liberalium ^..f^'
artiiun, so pompously referred to in his diploma of graduation,
may not have taught him, as I can testify in an instance person-
ally known to me, whether \A\cjg'umtm is a bone, or the humerus
an intestine. Every hour of study consumes a portion of his
muscular and vital force. Every tissue of his body requires its
appropriate nourishment, the elements of which are found in
abundance in the various products of nature ; but he has never
inquired where he shall find the phosphates and carbonates of
lime for his bones, albumen and fibrine for his blood, and
phosphorus for his brain. His chemistry, mineralogy, botany,
anatomy, and physiology, if thoroughly studied, would give all
this knowledge ; but he has been intent on things remote and
foreign, and has given little heed to those matters which so
nearly concern the chief functions of life. Yet the student
should not be blamed. The great men of history have set him
the example. Copernicus discovered and announced the true
theory of the solar system a hundred years before the circulation
of the blood was known. Though from the heart to the surface,
and from the surface back to the heart of every man of the race,
some twenty pounds of blood had made the circuit once every
three minutes, from the creation of the first man, yet men were
looking so steadily away from themselves that they did not ob-
serve the wonderful fact. Man's habit of thought has devel-
oped itself in all the courses of college study.

In the next place, I inquire, What kinds of knowledge are
necessary for carrying on and improving the useful arts and in-
dustries of civilized life ? I am well aware of the current notion
that these muscular arts should stay in the fields and shops, and
not invade the sanctuaries of learning. A finished education is
supposed to consist mainly of literary culture. The story of the
forges of the Cyclops, where the thunderbolts of Jove were
fashioned, is supposed to adorn elegant scholarship more grace-
fully than those sturdy truths which are preached to this gener-
ation in the wonders of the mine, in the fire of the furnace, in
the clang of the iron-mill, and the other innumerable industries
which, more than all other human agencies, have made our civil-

270 COLLEGE EDUCATION.

ization what it is, and are destined to achieve wonders yet un-
dreamed of. This generation is beginning to understand that
education should not be forever divorced from industry, — that
the highest results can be reached only when science guides the
hand of labor. With what eagerness and alacrity is industry
seizing every truth of science, and putting it in harness ! A few
years ago, Bessemer, of England, studying the nice affinities
between carbon and the metals, discovered that a slight change
of combination would produce a metal possessing the ductility
of iron and the compactness of steel, and which would cost but
little more than common iron. One rail of this metal will out-
last fifteen of the iron rails now in use. Millions of capital are
already invested to utilize this thought of Bessemer, which must
soon revolutionize the iron manufacture of the world.

Another example. The late war raised the price of cotton
and paper made of cotton rags. It was found that good paper
could be manufactured from the fibre of soft wood ; but it was
expensive and difficult to reduce the wood to pulp, without
chopping the fibre in pieces. A Yankee mechanic, who had
learned from the science of vegetable anatomy that a billet of
wood is composed of millions of hollow cylinders, many of them
so small that only the microscope can reveal them, and having
learned also the penetrative and expansive power of steam, wed-
ded these two truths in an experiment, which, if exhibited to
Socrates, would have been declared a miracle from the gods.
The experiment was very simple. Putting his block of wood in
a strong box, he forced into it a volume of superheated steam,
which made its way into the minutest pore and cell of the wood.
Then, through a trap-door suddenly opened, the block was
tossed out. The outside pressure being removed, the expand-
ing steam instantly burst every one of the million tubes ; every
vegetable flue collapsed, and his block of wood lay before him a
mass of fleecy fibre, more delicate than the hand of man could
make it.

Machinery is the chief implement with which civilization does
its work ; but the science of mechanics is impossible without
mathematics. But for her mineral resources England would be
only the hunting-park of Europe, and it is believed that her day
of greatness will terminate when her coal-fields are. exhausted.
Our mineral wealth is a thousand times greater than hers ; and
yet, without the knowledge of geology, mineralogy, metallurgy.

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 271

and chemistry, our mines can be of but little value. Without
a knowledge of astronomy, commerce on the sea is impossible ;
and now, at last, it is being discovered that the greatest of all
our industries, agriculture, in which three fourths of all our
population are engaged, must call science to its aid, if it would
keep up with the demands of civilization. I need not enumer-
ate the extent and variety of knowledge, scientific and practical,
which a farmer needs in order to reach the full height and
scope of his noble calling.

And what has our American system of education done for
this controlling majority of the people? I can best answer that
question with a single fact. Notwithstanding there are in the
United States one hundred and twenty thousand common
schools and seven thousand academies and seminaries, — not-
withstanding there are two hundred and seventy-five colleges
where young men may be graduated as bachelors and masters
of the liberal arts, — yet in all these the people of the United
States have found so little being done or likely to be done, to
educate men for the work of agriculture, that they have de-
manded, and at last have secured from their political servants in
Congress, an appropriation sufficient to build and maintain, in
each State of the Union, a college for the education of farm-
ers. This great outlay would have .been totally unnecessary,
but for the stupid and criminal neglect of college, academic,
and common-school boards of education to furnish that which
the wants of the people require. The scholar and the worker
must join hands, if both would be successful.

I next ask, What studies arc necessary to teach our young
men and women the history and spirit of our government, and
their rights and duties as citizens? There is not now, and
there never was on this earth, a people who have had so many
and weighty reasons for loving their country, and thanking
God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, as our own.
And yet seven years ago there was probably less strong, ear-
nest, open love of country in the United States than in any
other nation of Christendom. It is true that the gulf of anarchy
and ruin into which treason threatened to plunge us startled
the nation as by an electric shock, and galvanized into life its
dormant and dying patriotism. But how came it dormant and
dying? I do not hesitate to affirm, that one of the chief causes
was our defective system of education. Seven years ago there

2/2 COLLEGE EDUCATION,

was scarcely an American college in which more than four
weeks out of the four years' course was devoted to studying
the government and history of the United States. For this*
feature of our educational system I have neither respect nor tol-
eration. It is far inferior to that of Persia three thousand years
ago. The uncultivated tribes of Greece, Rome, Libya, and Ger-
many surpassed us in this respect. Grecian children were taught
to reverence and emulate the virtues of their ancestors. Our
educational forces are so wielded as to teach our children to ad-
mire most that which is foreign, and fabulous, and dead. I have
recently examined the catalogue of a leading New England col-
lege, in which the geography and history of Greece and Rome
are required to be studied five terms ; but neither the history
nor the geography of the United States is named in the college
course, or required as a condition of admission. The American
child must know all the classic rivers, from the Scamander to
the yellow Tiber ; must tell you the length of the Appian Way,
and of the canal over which Horace and Virgil sailed on their
journey to Brundusium ; but he may be crowned with bacca-
laureate honors without having heard, since his first moment
of Freshman life, one word concerning the one hundred and
twenty-two thousand miles of coast and river navigation, the six
thousand miles of canal, ^nd the thirty-five thousand miles of
railroad, which indicate both the prosperity and the possibilities
of his own country.

It is well to know the history of those magnificent nations
whose origin is lost in fable, and whose epitaphs were written a
thousand years ago ; but if wc cannot know both, it is far bet-
ter to study the history of our own nation, whose origin we can
trace to the freest and noblest aspirations of the human heart, —
a nation that was formed from the hardiest, purest, and most
enduring elements of European civilization, — a nation that, by
its faith and courage, has dared and accomplished more for the
human race in a single century than Europe accomplished in
the first thousand years of the Christian era.

The New England township was the type after which our
Federal government was modelled ; yet it would be rare to find
a college student who can make a comprehensive and intelligent
statement of the municipal organization of the township in which
he lives, and tell you by what officers its legislative, judicial, and
executive functions are administered. One half of the time

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 273

which is now almost wholly wasted in district schools on Eng-
lish grammar, attempted at too early an age, would be sufficient
to teach our children to love the republic, and to become its
loyal and life-long supporters. After the bloody baptism from
which the nation has arisen to a higher and nobler life, if this
shameful defect in our system of education be not speedily
remedied, wc shall deserve the infinite contempt of future gen-
erations. I insist that it should be made an indispensable con-
dition of graduation in every American college, that the student
must understand the history of this continent since its discovery
by Europeans ; the origin and history of the United States, its
constitution of government, the struggles through which it has
passed, and the rights and duties of citizens who are to deter-
mine its destiny and share its glory.

I Having^thus gained the knowledge which is necessary to life,.
healthy industry, and citizenship, the student] is prepared to
enter a wider and grander field of thought. It he desires that
large and liberal culture which will call into activity all his pow-
ers, and make the most of the material God has given him, he
^ust study deeply and earnestly the intellectual, the moral, the
religious, and the aesthetic nature of man] — his relations to na-
ture, to civilization past and present, and, above all, hi.s rela-
tions to God. These should occupy nearly, if not fully, half
the time of his college course. In connection with the philoso-
phy of the mind, he should study logic, the pure mathematics,
and the general laws of thought. In connection with moral
philosophy, he should study political and social ethics, a science
so little known cither in colleges or congresses. Prominent
among all the rest should be his study of the wonderful history
of the human race, in its slow and toilsome march across the
centuries; — now buried in ignorance, superstition, and crime;
now rising to the sublimity of heroism, and catching a glimpse
of a better destiny; now turning remorselessly away from, and
leaving to perish, empires and civilizations in which it had in-
vested its faith and courage and boundless energy for a thou-
sand years, and plunging into the forests of Germany, Gaul, and
Britain, to build for itself new empires, better fitted for its new
aspirations; and at last crossing three thousand miles of un-
known sea, anjd building in the wilderness of a new hemisphere
its latest and proudest monuments. To know this as it ought
to be known requires not only a knowledge of general history,

VOL. I. 18

274 COLLEGE EDUCATION.

but a thorough understanding of such works as Guizot's " His-
tory of Civilization " and Draper's ** Intellectual Development of
Europe," and also the rich literature of ancient and modern na-
tions. Of course, our colleges cannot be expected to lead the
student through all the paths of this great field of learning ; but
they should at least point out its boundaries, and let him taste
a few clusters from its richest vines.

Finally, in rounding up the measure of his work, the student
should crown his education with that aesthetic culture which
will unfold to him the delights of nature and art, and make his
mind and heart a fit temple where the immortal spirit of Beauty
may dwell forever. While acquiring this kind of knowledge,
the student is on a perpetual voyage of discovery, — searching
what he is and what he may become, how he is related to the
universe, and how the harmonies of the outer world respond to
the voice within him. It is in this range of study that he learns
most fully his own tastes and aptitudes, and generally deter-
mines what his work in life shall be.

The last item in the classification I have suggested, that spe-
cial knowledge which is necessary to fit a man for the particular
profession or calling he may adopt, I cannot discuss here, as it
lies outside the field of general education ; but I will make one
suggestion to the young gentlemen before mc who intend to
choose, as their life-work, some one of the learned professions.
You will commit a fatal mistake if you make only the same
preparations which your predecessors made fifty, or even ten
years ago. Each generation must have a higher cultivation than
the preceding one, in order to be equally successful ; and each
man must be educated for his own times. If you become a
lawyer, you must remember that the science of law is not. fixed,
like geometry, but is a growth which keeps pace with the pro-
gress of society. The developments of the late war will make
it necessary to rewrite many of the leading chapters of irttcr-
national and maritime law. The destruction of slavery and the
enfranchisement of four millions of colored men will almost rev-
olutionize American jurisprudence. If Webster were now at
the bar, in the full glory of his strength, he would be compelled
largely to reconstruct the fabric of his legal learning. Similar
changes are occurring both in the medical and military profes-
sions. Ten years hence the young surgeon will hardly venture
to open an ofiice till he has studied thoroughly the medical and

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 27s

surgical history of the late war. After our experience at Sum-
ter and Wagner, no nation will again build fortifications of costly
masonry ; for they have learned that earthworks are not only
cheaper, but a better defence against artillery. The text-books
on military engineering must be rewritten. Our Spencer rifle
and the Prussian needle-gun have revolutionized both the man-
ufacture of arms and the manual of arms ; and no great battle
will ever again be fought with muzzle-loading muskets. Napo-
leon, at the head of his Old Guard, could to-day win no Auster-
litz till he had read the military history of the last six years.

It may perhaps be thought that the suggestion I have made
concerning the professions will not apply to the work of the
Christian minister, whose principal text-book is a divine and
perfect revelation ; but, in my judgment, the remark applies to
the clerical profession with even more force than to any other.
There is no department of his duties in which he does not need
the fullest and the latest knowledge. He is pledged to the
defence of revelation and religion ; but it will not avail him to
be able to answer the objections of Hume and Voltaire. The
arguments of Paley were not written to answer the scepticism
of to-day. His ** Natural Theology " is now less valuable than
Hugh Miller's " Footprints of the Creator," or Guyot's lectures
on ** Earth and Man." The men and women of to-day know
but little, and care less, about the thousand abstract questions
of polemic theology which puzzled the heads and wearied the
hearts of our Puritan fathers and mothers. That minister will
make, and deserves to make, a miserable failure, who attempts
to feed hungry hearts on the dead dogmas of the past. More
than that of any other man it is his duty to march abreast of
the advanced thinkers of his time, and be, not only a learner, but
a teacher of its science, its literature, and its criticism. But I
return to the main question before me.

Having endeavored to state what kinds of knowledge should
be the objects of a liberal education, I shall next inquire how
well the course of study in American colleges is adapted to the
attainment of these objects. In discussing this question, I do
not forget that he is deemed a rash and imprudent man who
invades with suggestions of change these venerable sanctuaries
of learning. Let him venture to suggest that much of the wis-
dom there taught is foolishness, and he may hear from the
college chapels of the land, in good Virgilian hexameter, the

276 COLLEGE EDUCATION,

warning cry, "Procul, O procul este, profani ! " Happy for him
if the whole body of alumni do not with equal pedantry re-
spond in Horatian verse, " Fenum habet in cornu ; longe fuge."
But I protest that a friend of American education may suggest
changes in our college studies without committing profanation,
or carrying hay on his horns. Our colleges have done, and are
doing, a noble work, for which they deserve the thanks of the
nation ; but he is not their enemy who suggests that they ought
to do much better. As an alumnus of one which I shall always
reverence, and as a friend of all, I shall venture to discuss the
work they are doing.

I have examined the catalogues of some twenty Eastern,
Western, and Southern colleges, and find the subjects taught,
and the relative time given to each, about the same in all. The
chief difference is in the quantity of work required. I will take
Harvard as a representative, it being the oldest of our colleges,
and certainly requiring as much study as any other. Remem-
bering that the standard by which we measure a student's
work for one day is three recitations of one hour each, and
that his year usually consists of three terms of thirteen or
fourteen weeks each, for convenience' sake I will divide the
work required to admit him to college, and after four years
to graduate him, into two classes: first, that which belongs
to the study of Latin and Greek; and, second, that which
docs not.

Now, from the annual Catalogue of Harvard for 1866-67, I
find that the candidate for admission to the Freshman class
must be examined in eight terms' study in Latin, six in Greek,
one in ancient geography, one in Grecian history, and one in
Roman history, which make seventeen terms in the studies of
the first class. Under the second class the candidate is required
to be examined in reading, in common-school arithmetic and
geography, in one term's study of algebra, and one term of
geometry. English grammar is not mentioned. Thus, after
completing the elementary branches which are taught in all our
common schools, it requires about two years and a half of study
to enter the college ; and of that study seventeen parts are de-
voted to the language, history, and geography of Greece and
Rome, and two parts to all other subjects !

Reducing the Harvard year to the usual division of three
terms, the analysis of the work will be found as follows : not

Lt

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 277

less than nine terms of Latin (there may be twelve if the stu-
dent chooses it) ; not less than six terms of Greek (but twelve
if he chooses it) ; and three terms of Roman history if the stu-
dent elects it. With the average of three recitations per day,
and three terms per year, we may say that the whole work of
college study consists of thirty-six parts. Not less than fifteen
of these must be devoted to Latin and Greek, and not more
than twenty-one to all other subjects. If the student chooses,
he may devote twenty-four parts to Latin and Greek, and twelve
to all other subjects. Taking the whole six and a half years of
preparatory and college study, we find that, to earn a bachelor's
diploma at Harvard, a young man, after leaving the district
school, must devote four sevenths of all his labor to Greece
and Rome.

Now, what do wc find in our second, or unclassical list? It
is chiefly remarkable for what it does not contain. In the whole
programme of study, lectures included, no mention whatever is
made of physical geography, of anatomy, physiology, or the
general history of the United States. A few weeks of the Sen-
ior year given to Guizot, the history of the Federal Constitu-
tion, and a lecture on general history once a week during half
that year, furnish all that the graduate of Harvard is required
to know of his own country, and the living nations of the earth.
He must apply years of arduous labor to the history, oratory,
and poetry of Greece and Rome ; but he is not required to cull
a single flower from the rich fields of our own literature. Eng-
lish literature is not named in the curriculum, except that the
student may, if he chooses, attend a few general lectures on
modern literature.

Such are some of the facts in reference to the educational
work of our most venerable college, where there is probably
concentrated more general and special culture than at any other
in America. I think it probable, that in some of the colleges
the proportion of Latin and Greek to other studies may be less ;
but I believe that in none of them is the preparatory and col-
lege work devoted to these two languages less than half of all
the work required. Now, the bare statement of this fact should
challenge, and must challenge, the attention of every thoughtful
man in the nation. No wonder that men are demanding, with
an earnestness that will not be repressed, to know how it hap-
pens, and why it happens, that, placing in one end of the balance

278 COLLEGE EDUCATION,

all the mathematical studies, all the physical sciences in their re-
cent rapid developments, all the study of the human mind and the
laws of thought, all the principles of political economy and social
science which underlie the commerce and industry, and shape
the legislation of nations, the history of our own nation, its con-
stitution of government, and its great industrial interests, all the
literature and history of modern civilization, — placing all this,
I say, in one end of the balance, they kick the beam when
Greece and Rome are placed in the other. I hasten to say that
I make no attack upon the study of these noble languages as
an important and necessary part of a liberal education. I have
no sympathy with that sentiment which would drive them from
academy and college, as a part of the dead past that should
bury its dead. It is Xki^ proportion of the work given to them of
which I complain.

These studies hold their relative rank in obedience to the
tyranny of custom. Each new college is modelled after the
older ones, and all the American colleges have been patterned
on an humble scale after the universities of England. The
prominence given to Latin and Greek at the founding of these
universities was a matter of inexorable necessity. The continu-
ance of the same, or an>^vhcre near the same, relative promi-
nence to-day, is both unnecessary and indefensible. I appeal to
history for the proof of these assertions.

From the close of the fifth century we date the beginning of
those dark ages which enveloped the whole world for a thou-
sand years. The human race seemed stricken with intellectual
paralysis. The noble language of the Caesars, corrupted by a
hundred barbarous dialects, ceased to be a living tongue long
before the modern languages of Europe had been reduced to
writing. In Italy the Latin died in the tenth century; but the
oldest document known to exist in Italian was not written till
the year 1200. Italian did not really take its place in the family
of written languages till a century later, when it was crystallized
into form and made immortal by the genius of Dante and Pe-
trarch. The Spanish was not a written language till the year
1200, and was scarcely known to Europe till Cervantes con-
vulsed the world with laughter in 1605. The Latin ceased to
be spoken by the people of France in the tenth century, and
French was not a written language till the beginning of the
fourteenth century. Pascal, who died in 1662, is called the

COLLEGE EDUCATION, 279

father of modern French prose. The German, as a literary
language, dates from Luther, who died in 1546. It was one of
his mortal sins against Rome, that he translated the Bible into
the uncouth and vulgar tongue of Germany.

Our own language is also of recent origin. Richard I. of
England, who died in 1199, never spoke a word of English in
his life. Our mother tongue was never heard in an English
court of justice till 1362. The statutes of England were not
written in English till three years before Columbus landed in
the New World. No philologist dates modern English farther
back than 1500. Sir Thomas More, the author of ** Utopia,"
who died in 1535, was the father of English prose.

The dark ages were the sleep of the world, while the lan-
guages of the modern world were being born out of chaos.
The first glimmer of dawn was in the tA\'elfth century, when
in Paris, Oxford, and other parts of Europe, universities were
established. The fifteenth century was spent in saving the rem-
nants of classic learning which had been locked up in the cells
of monks, — the Greek at Constantinople, and the Latin in the
cloisters of Western Europe.

During the first three hundred years of the life of the older
universities, it is almost literally true, that no modern tongue
had become a written language. The learning of Europe was
in Latin and Greek. In order to study either science or litera-
ture, these languages must first be learned. European writers
continued to use Latin long after the modern languages were
fully established. Even Milton's great " Defence of the People
of England," which appeared in 165 1, was written in Latin, — as
were also the ** Principia," and other scientific works of New-
ton, who died in 1727. The pride of learned corporations, the
spirit of exclusivencss among learned men, and their want of
sympathy with the mass of the people, united to maintain Latin
as the language of learning long after its use ceased to be de-
fensible.

Now, mark the contrast between the objects and demands of
education when the European universities were founded, — or
even when Har\'ard was founded, — and its demands at the
present time. We have a family of modern languages almost
equal in force and perfection to the classic tongues, and a
modern literature, which, if less perfect than the ancient in aes-
thetic form, is immeasurably richer in truth, and is filled with

28o COLLEGE EDUCATION.

the noblest and bravest thoughts of the world. When the uni-
versities were founded, modern science had not been born.
Scarcely a generation has passed since then, without adding
some new science to the circle of knowledge. As late as 1809,
the Edinburgh Review declared that ** lectures upon political
economy would be discouraged in Oxford, probably despised,
probably not permitted." At a much later date, there was no
text-book in the United States on that subject. The claims of
Latin and Greek to the chief place in the curriculum have been
gradually growing less, and the importance of other knowledge
has been constantly increasing ; but the colleges have generally
opposed all innovations,' and still cling to the old ways with
stubborn conservatism. Some concessions, however, have been
made to the necessities of the times, both in Europe and Amer-
ica. Harvard would hardly venture to enforce its law (which
prevailed long after Cotton Mather's day) forbidding its students
to speak English within the college limits, under any pretext
whatever ; and British Cantabs have had their task of compos-
ing hexameters in bad Latin reduced by a few thousand verses
during the last century.

It costs me a struggle to say anything on this subject which
may be regarded with favor by those who would reject the
classics altogether, for I have read them and taught them with
a pleasure and relish which few other pursuits have ever afford-
ed me; but I am persuaded that their supporters must soon
submit to a readjustment of their relations to college study, or
they may be driven from the course altogether. There are most
weighty reasons why Latin and Greek should be retained as
part of a liberal education. He who would study our own lan-
guage profoundly must not forget that nearly thirty per cent
of its words are of Latin origin, — that the study of Latin is the
study of universal grammar, — that it renders the acquisition of
any modern language an easy task, and is indispensable to
the teacher of language and literature, and to other profes-
sional men. Greek is, perhaps, the most perfect instrument of
thought ever invented by man, and its literature has never been
equalled in purity of style and boldness of expression. As a
means of intellectual discipline, its value can hardly be over-
estimated. To take a long and complicated sentence in Greek,
to study each word in its meanings, inflections, and relations,
and to build up in the mind, out of these polished materials, a

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 281

sentence perfect as a temple, and filled with Greek thought
which has dwelt there two thousand years, is almost an act
of creation : it calls into activity all the faculties of the mind.
That the Christian oracles have come down to us in Greek,
will make Greek scholars forever a necessity.

These studies, then, should not be neglected: they should
neither devour nor be devoured. I insist they can be made
more valuable, and at the same time less prominent, than they
now are. A large part of the labor now bestowed upon them
is not devoted to learning the genius and spirit of the lan-
guage, but is more than wasted on pedantic trifles. In 1809
Sydney Smith lashed this trifling as it deserves in the Edin-
burgh Review. Speaking of classical Englishmen, he says : —

"Their minds have been so completely possessed by exaggerated
notions of classical learning, that they have not been able, in the great
school of the world, to form any other notion of real greatness. Attend,
too, to the public feelings ; look to all the terms of applause. A learned
man ! a scholar ! a man of erudition ! Upon whom are these epithets
of approbation bestowed ? Are they given to men acquainted with the
science of government, thoroughly masters of the geographical and com-
mercial relations of Europe ? to men who know the properties of bodies
and their action upon each other ? No : this is not learning ; it is chem-
istry, or political economy, not learning. The distinguishing abstract
term, the epithet of scholar, is reserved for him who writes on the -^olic
reduplication, and is familiar with the Sylburgian method of arranging

defectives in w and /xi His object [the young Englishman's] is

not to reason, to imagine, or to invent, but to conjugate, decline, and
derive. The situations of imaginary glory which he draws for himself
are the detection of an anapest in the wrong place, or the restoration of
a dative case which Cranzius had passed over and the never-dying Er-
nesti failed to observe. If a young classic of this kind were to meet the
greatest chemist, or the greatest mechanician, or the most profound po-
litical economist of his time, in company with the greatest Greek scholar,
would the slightest comparison between them ever come across his mind ?
Would he ever dream that such men as Adam Smith and Lavoisier were
equal in dignity of understanding to, or of the same utility as, Bentley or
Heyne? We are inclined to think that the feeling excited would be
a good deal like that which was expressed by Dr. George about the
praises of the great king of Prussia, who entertained considerable doubts
whether the king, with all his victories, knew how to conjugate a Greek
verb in /ai." ^

1 The Works of the Rev. Sydney Smith, (Boston, 1856,) p. 75.

282 COLLEGE EDUCATION.

He concludes another article,^ written in 1826, with these
words : " If there is anything which fills reflecting men with
melancholy and regret, it is the waste of mortal time, parental
money, and puerile happiness, in the present method of pur-
suing Latin and Greek."

To write verse in these languages ; to study elaborate theories
of the Greek accent, and the ancient pronunciation of both
Greek and Latin, which no one can ever know he has discov-
ered, and which would be utterly valueless if he did discover
it; to toil over the innumerable exceptions to the arbitrary
rules of poetic quantity, which few succeed in learning, and
none remember, — these, and a thousand other similar things
which crowd the pages of Zumpt and Kiihner, no more con-
stitute a knowledge of the spirit and genius of the Greek and
Latin languages, than counting the number of threads to the
square inch in a man's coat and the number of pegs in his
boots makes us acquainted with his moral and intellectual
character. The greatest literary monuments of Greece existed
hundreds of years before the science of grammar was born.
Plato and Thucydides had a tolerable acquaintance with the
Greek language ; but Crosby goes far beyond their depth. Our
colleges should require a student to understand thoroughly the
structure, idioms, and spirit of these languages, and to be able,
by the aid of a lexicon, to analyze and translate them with
readiness and elegance. They should give him the key to the
storehouse of ancient literature, that he may explore its treas-
ures for himself in after life. This can be done in two years
less than the usual time, and nearly as well as it is done now.

I am glad to inform you, young gentlemen, that the trustees
of this institution have this day resolved that, in the course of
study to be pursued here, Latin and Greek shall not be rc-
quircd after the Freshman year. They must be studied the
usual time as a requisite to admission, and they may be car-
ried farther than the Freshman year as elective studies; but in
the regular course their places will be supplied by some of
the studies I have already mentioned. Three or four terms in
general literature will teach you that the republic of letters is
larger than Greece or Rome.

The board of trustees have been strengthened in the position
they have taken, by the fact that a similar course for the future

* Hamilton's Method of Teaching Languages.

COLLEGE EDUCATION, 283

has recently been announced by the authorities of Harvard Col-
lege. Within the last six days, I have received a circular from
the secretary of that venerable college, which announces that
two thirds of the Latin and Greek are hereafter to be stricken
from the list of required studies of the college course. I rejoice
that the movement has begun. Other colleges must follow the
example ; and the day will not be far distant when it shall be
the pride of a scholar that he is also a worker, and when the
worker shall not refuse to become a scholar because he despises
a trifler.

I congratulate you that this change does not reduce the
amount of labor required of you. If it did, I should deplore it.
I beseech you to remember that the genius of success is still
the genius of the lamp. If hard work is not another name for
talent, it is the best possible substitute for it. In the long run,
the chief difference in men will be found in the amount of work
they do. Do not trust to what lazy men call the spur of the
occasion. If you wish to wear spurs in the tournament of life,
you must buckle them to your own heels before you enter the
lists.

Men look with admiring wonder upon a great intellectual
effort, like VV^ebster's reply to Hayne, and seem to think that it
leaped into life by the inspiration of the moment. But if by
some intellectual chemistry we could resolve that masterly
speech into its several elements of power, and trace each to
its source, we should find that every constituent force had been
elaborated twenty years before, — it may be, in some hour of
earnest intellectual labor. Occasion may be the bugle-call that
summons an army to battle ; but the blast of a bugle can never
make soldiers, or win victories.

And finally, young gentlemen, learn to cultivate a wise re-
liance, based not on what you hope, but on what you perform.
It has long been the habit of this institution, if I may so speak,
to throw young men overboard, and let them sink or swim.
None have yet drowned who were worth the saving. I hope
the practice will be continued, and that you will not rely upon
outside help for growth or success. Give crutches to cripples;
but go you forth with brave, true hearts, knowing that fortune
dwells in your brain and muscle, and that labor is the only
human symbol of Omnipotence.

— —

THE CURRENCY.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

May is, 1868.

What was the original view of the Legal Tender Act and the suspen-
sion of specie payments, was pointed out in the introduction to the
speech of March 16, 1866. That this view was still the current one at
the close of the war, is shown by the fact that the House of Representa-
tives, by a vote of 144 to 6, adopted the resolution of Dec. 18, 1865,
quoted in this speech.^ A further test of the same kind is found in
the act of April 12, 1866, which gave the Secretary of the Treasury
power to call in and cancel legal-tender notes, ten millions of dollars the
first six months, and after that at the rate of four millions per month.
But even at that time the effect of an inflated currency, and of ihe
general use of unredeemed promises as money, could be seen in many
ways. The public intelligence was becoming darkened, and the public
conscience hardened. Henceforth for several years a settled and deter-
mined popular movement in the direction of inflation can be traced.
Congress responded to popular opinion by enacting, January 23, 1868,
" That from and after the passage of this act the authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury to make any reduction of the currency, by
retiring or cancelling United States notes, shall be and is hereby sus-
pended." Since the passage of the act of April 12, 1866, the Secretary
of the Treasury had retired $44,000,000 of greenbacks. The act of
1868 took from him the power further to contract the currency, and
indefinitely postponed the return to specie payments. The proposition
to pay the five-twenty bonds in legal-tender notes had already been sub-
mitted to the public, and received with much favor. These extreme
financial doctrines were advocated upon the floor of Congress. Day by
day, the tide of folly and dishonor rose higher and higher. Hence, as
an attempt to check its higher rise, if possible to turn it back, Mr.
Garfield prepared and delivered the following speech. As the House
was in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, he was able

' See also note to speech of March 16, 1866, ante^ p. 200.

THE CURRENCY, 285

to handle his subject in the broadest way, and was not required to
deal with any particular measure. Accordingly, this is one of the most
expository of all his financial speeches, and comes nearer, perhaps, to
being a sound-money manual, than any other speech of his life.*

'* I cannot but lament from my inmost soul that lust for paper money which appears in some
parts of the United States ; there will never be any uniform rule, if there is any sense of justice,
nor any clear credit, public or private, nor any settled confidence in public men or measures,
until paper money is done away." — John Adams.

MR. CHAIRMAN, — I am aware that financial subjects are
dull and uninviting in comparison with those heroic
themes which have absorbed the attention of Congress for the
last five years. To turn from the consideration of armies and
navies, victories and defeats, to the long array of figures which
exhibit the debt, expenditure, taxation, and industry of the
nation, requires no little courage and self-denial ; but to those
questions we must come, and to their solution Congresses, politi-
cal parties, and all thoughtful citizens must give their best efforts
for many years to come. Our public debt, the greatest financial
fact of this century, stands in the pathway of all political parties,
and, like the Theban Sphinx, propounds its riddles. All the
questions which spring out of the public debt, — such as loans,
bonds, tariffs, internal taxation, banking, and currency, — pre-
sent greater difficulties than usually come within the scope of
American politics. They cannot be settled by force of numbers,
nor carried by assault, as an army storms the works of an enemy.
Patient examination of facts, careful study of principles which
do not always appear on the surface, and which involve the most
difficult problems of political economy, are the weapons of this
warfare. No sentiment of national pride should make us un-
mindful of the fact that we have less experience in this direction
than any other civilized nation. If this fact is not creditable to
our intellectual reputation, it at least affords a proof that our
people have not hitherto been crushed under the burdens of
taxation. We must consent to be instructed by the experience

^ It is proper to say that copies of this speech were sent to Europe by the Sec-
retary of the Treasury, who hoped it might have a favorable effect upon American
credit abroid. Some of these copies came into the hands of influential members
of the Cobden Club, London, and led at once to Mr. Garfield's election to its
honorary membership.

286 THE CURRENCY.

of other nations, and be willing to approach these questions, not
with the dogmatism of teachers, but as seekers after truth.

It is evident that, both in Congress and among the people,
there is great diversity of opinion on all these themes. He is
indeed a bold man who, at this time, claims to have mastered
any one of them, or reached conclusions on all its features satis-
factory even to himself. For myself; I claim only to have studied
earnestly to know what the best interests of the country demand
at the hands of Congress. I have listened with great respect to
the opinions of those with whom I differ most, and only ask for
myself what I award to all others, a patient hearing.

The past six months have been remarkable for unparalleled
distress in the commercial and industrial interests of half the
civilized world. In Great Britain the distress among the labor-
ing classes is more terrible than the people of those islands have
suffered for a quarter of a century. From every city, town, and
village in the kingdom the cry of distress comes up through
every issue of the press. The London Times of December 1 1
says : " Last winter the demands on the public were unprece-
dented. The amount of money given to the poor of London
beyond that disbursed in legal relief of the poor was almost
incredible. It seemed the demand had reached its high-
est point ; but if we arc not mistaken, the exigencies of the
present season will surpass those of any former year in British
history." The London Star, of a still later date, says : " Men
and women die in our streets every day of starvation. Whole
districts are sinking into one vast, squalid, awful condition of
helpless, hopeless destitution."

From many parts of Continental Europe there comes a simi-
lar cry. A few weeks since, the Secretary of State laid before
this body a letter from the American Minister at Copenhagen,
appealing to this country for contributions for the relief of the
suffering poor of Sweden and Norway. A late Berlin paper
says, " Business is at a stand-still, and privation and suffering
are everywhere seen." The inhabitants of Eastern Prussia are
appealing to the German citizens of the United States for imme-
diate relief. In Russia the horrors of pestilence are added to
the sufferings of famine. In Finland the peasants are dying of
starvation by hundreds. In some parts of France and Spain
the scarcity is very great. In Northern Africa the suffering
is still greater. In Algiers the deaths by starvation are so

THE CURRENCY. 287

numerous that the victims are buried in trenches like the slain
on a battle-field. In Tunis eigjit thousand have thus perished
in two months. The United States Consul at that place writes
that on the 27th of December two hundred people starved to
death in the streets of that city, and the average daily deaths
from starvation exceed one hundred.

Our sadness at the contemplation of this picture is mingled
with indignation, when we reflect that at the present moment,
in the eight principal nations of Europe, there are three million
men under arms at an annual cost of nearly a thousand million
dollars, — an expense which in twenty years would pay every
national debt in Christendom. And this only the peace estab-
lishment! While Napoleon is feeding fifty thousand starving
Frenchmen daily from the soup kitchens of the imperial palace,
he is compelling the French legislature to double his army.
Whatever distress our people may be suffering, they have reason
to be thankful that the bloody monster called the "balance of
power" has never cast its shadow upon our country. We have
reason, indeed, to be thankful that our people are suffering less
than the people of any other nation. But the distress here is
unusual for us. It is seen in the depression of business, the
stagnation of trade, the high price of provisions, and the great
difficulty which laboring men encounter in finding employment.
It is said that during the past winter seventy-five thousand
laborers in New York City have been unable to find employ-
ment The whole industry of the States lately in rebellion is
paralyzed, and in many localities the cry of hunger is heard.
It is the imperative duty of Congress to ascertain the cause
of this derangement of our industrial forces, and apply whatever
remedy legislation can afford. The field is a broad one, the
subject is many-sided ; but our first step should be to ascertain
the facts of our situation.

I shall direct my remarks on this occasion to but one fea-
ture of our legislation. I propose to discuss the currency,
and its relation to the revenue and business prosperity of the
country.

In April, 1861, there began in this country an industrial
revolution, not yet completed, as gigantic in its proportions
and as far-reaching in its consequences as the political and
military revolution through which we have passed. As the
first step to any intelligent discussion of the currency, it is

288 THE CURRENCY.

necessary to examine the character and progress of that indus-
trial revolution. ^

The year i860 was one of remarkable prosperity in all
branches ot business. For seventy years no Federal tax-
gatherer had been seen among the laboring population of the
United States. Our public debt was less than sixty-five million
dollars. The annual expenditures of the government, including
interest on the public debt, were less than sixty-four million
dollars. The revenues from customs alone amounted to six
sevenths of the expenditures. The value of our agricultural
products for that year amounted to $i,625,ocx),ooo. Our cotton
crop alone was 2,155,000,000 pounds, and we supplied to the
markets of the world seven eighths of all the cotton consumed.
Our merchant marine, engaged in foreign trade, amounted
to 2,546,237 tons, and promised soon to rival the immense
carrying trade of England.

Let us now observe the effect of the war on the various
departments of business. From the moment the first hostile
gun was fired, the Federal and State governments became gi-
gantic consumers. As far as production was concerned, eleven
States were completely separated from the Union. Two mil-
lion laborers — more than one third of the adult population of
the Northern States — were withdrawn from the ranks of pro-
ducers, and became only consumers of wealth. The Federal
governrtient became an insatiable devourer. Leaving out of
account the vast sums expended by States, counties, cities,
towns, and individuals for the payment of bounties, for the
relief of sick and wounded soldiers and their families, and
omitting the losses — which can never be estimated — of prop-
erty destroyed by hostile armies, I shall speak only of ex-
penditures which appear on the books of the Federal Treasury.
From the 30th of June, 1 861, to the 30th of June, 1865, there
were paid out of the Federal treasury $3,340,996,21 1, making
an average for these four years of more than $836,000,000 per
annum.

From the official records of the Treasury Department it
appears that, from the beginning of the American Revolution
in 1775 to the beginning of the late rebellion, the total ex-
penditures of the government for all purposes, including the
Assumed war debts of the States, amounted to $2,250,000,000.
The expenditures of four years of the rebellion were nearly

THE CURRENCY. 289

$i,ioo,ocx>,(XX) more than all the Federal expenses since the
Declaration of Independence. The debt of England, which
had its origin in the Revolution of 1688, and was increased by
more than one hundred years of war and other political disas-
ters, had reached in 1793 the sum of $1,268,000,000. During
the twenty-two years that followed, while England was engaged
in a life and death struggle with Napoleon, $3,056,000,000 was
added to her debt. In four years we spent $300,000,000 more
than the amount by which England increased her debt in twenty-
two years of war, — almost as much as she had increased it in
one hundred and twenty-five years of war. Now, the enormous
demand which this expenditure created for all the products of
industry stimulated to an unparalleled degree every depart-
ment of business. Plough, furnace, mill, loom, railroad, steam-
boat, telegraph, — all were driven to their utmost capacity.
Warehouses were emptied; and the great reserves of supply,
which all nations in a normal state keep on hand, were ex-
hausted to meet the demands of the great consumer. For many
months the government swallowed three millions per day of the
products of industry. Under the pressure of this demand, prices
rose rapidly in every department of business. Labor everywhere
found quick and abundant returns. Old debts were cancelled,
and great fortunes were made.

For the transaction of this enormous business an increased
amount of currency was needed ; but I doubt if any member
of this House can be found bold enough to deny that the
deluge of treasury notes poured upon the country during the
war was far greater than even the great demands of business.
Let it not be forgotten, however, that the chief object of these
issues was not to increase the currency of the country. They
were authorized with great reluctance and under the pressure
of ovenvhelming necessity, as a temporary expedient to meet
the demands of the treasury. They were really forced loans
in the form of treasury notes. By the act of July 17, 1861,
an issue of demand notes was authorized to the amount of
$50,000,000. By the act of August 5, 1861, this amount was
increased $50,000,000 more. By the act of February 25, 1862,
an additional issue of $150,000,000 was authorized. On the
17th of the same month an unlimited issue of fractional cur-
rency was authorized. On the 17th of January, 1863, an issue

of $150,000,000 more was authorized, which was increased
voL.»i. 19

,')^i*»

290 THE CURRENCY.

$50,ocx),(XX) by the act of March 3 of the same year. This
act also authorized the issue of one and two years' Treasury
notes, bearing interest at five per cent, to be a legal tender for
their face, to the amount of $400,ocx),ooo. By the act of June
30, 1864, an issue of six per cent compound-interest notes, to
be a legal tender for their face, was authorized, to the amount
of $200,000,000. In addition to this, many other forms of
paper obligation were authorized, which, though not a legal
tender, performed many of the functions of currency. By the
act of March i, 1862, the issue of an unlimited amount of cer-
tificates of indebtedness was authorized, and within ninety days
after the passage of the act, there had been issued and were
outstanding of these certificates more than $156,000,000. Of
course these issues were not all outstanding at the same time,
but the acts show how great was the necessity for loans during
the war.

The law which made the vast volume of United States notes
a legal tender operated as an act of general bankruptcy. The
man who loaned $1,000 in July, 1861, payable in three years,
was compelled by this law to accept at maturity, as a full dis-
charge of the debt, an amount of currency equal in value to
$350 of the money he loaned. Private indebtedness was every-
where cancelled. Rising prices increased the profits of business ;
but this prosperity was caused by the great demand for pro-
ducts, and not by the abundance of paper money. As a means
of transacting the vast business of the country, a great volume
of currency was indispensable; and its importance cannot be
well overestimated. But let us not be led into the fatal error
of supposing that paper money created the business or pro-
duced the wealth. As well might it be alleged that our rivers
and canals produce the grain which they float to market. Like
currency, the channels of commerce stimulate production, but
cannot nullify the inexorable law of demand and supply.

Mr. Chairman, I have endeavored to trace the progress of
our industrial revolution in passing from peace to war. In
returning from war to peace all the conditions were reversed.
At once the government ceased to be an all-devouring con-
sumer. Nearly two million able-bodied men were discharged
from the army and navy, and enrolled in the ranks of the pro-
ducers. The expenditures of the government, which for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1865, amounted to $1,290,000,000,

THE CURRENCY. 291

were reduced to $520,cxx),cxx) in 1866, to $346,000,000 in 1867;
and, if the retrenchment measures recommended by the Special
Commissioner of the Revenue, be adopted, another year will
bring them below $300,000,000. Thus during the first year
after the war the demands of the Federal government as a
consumer decreased sixty per cent; and in the second year
the decrease had reached seventy-four per cent, with a fair
prospect of a still further reduction.

The recoil of this sudden change would have produced great
financial disaster in 1866, but for the fact that there was still
open to industry the work of replacing the wasted reserves of
supply, which in all countries in a healthy state of business are
estimated to be sufficient for two years. During 1866, the fall
in price of all articles of industry amounted to an average of
ten per cent. One year ago a table was prepared at my request
by Mr. Edward Young, in the office of the Special Commis-
sioner of the Revenue, exhibiting a comparison of wholesale
prices at New York in December, 1865, and December, 1866.
It shows that in ten leading articles of provisions there was an
average decline of twenty-two per cent, though beef, together
with flour and other breadstuffs, remained nearly stationary.
On cotton and woollen goods, boots, shoes, and clothing, the de-
cline was thirty per cent. On the products of manufacture and
mining, including coal, cordage, iron, lumber, naval stores, oils,
tallow, tin, and wool, the decline was twenty-five per cent. The
average decline on all commodities was at least ten per cent.
According to the estimates of the Special Commissioner of the
Revenue in his late report, the average decline during 1867 has
amounted to at least ten per cent more. During the past two
years, Congress has provided by law for reducing internal taxa-
tion $100,000,000; and the act passed a few weeks ago has
reduced the tax on manufactures by the amount of $64,000,000
per annum. The repeal of the cotton tax will make a further
reduction of $20,000,000. State and municipal taxation and
expenditures have also been greatly reduced. The work of
replacing these reserves delayed the shock and distributed its
effects, but could not avert the inevitable result. During the
past two years, one by one, the various departments of indus-
try produced a supply equal to the demand. Then followed a
glutted market, a fall in prices, and a stagnation of business by
which thousands of laborers were thrown out of employment.

^^ THE CURRENCY.

If to this it be added that the famine in Europe and the
viuMi^Kt in many of the s^cultural States of the Union have
kv|>< Uic price of provisions from falling as other commodities
haY« £adkii> we shall have a sufficient explanation of the stag-
OA^iott of business and the unusual distress among our people.

Thi^ industrial revolution has been governed by laws beyond
|hc reach of Congress. No legislation could have arrested it
4t ;iU)y stage of its progress. The most that could possibly be
J^.>1K'' by Congress was to take advantage of the prosperity it
vHN*aoncd to raise a revenue for the support of the government,
4IkI to nnitigate the severity of its subsequent pressure, by
ivxlucing the vast machinery of war to the lowest scale possible.
Manifestly, nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that
^hv^ abundance of currency produced the prosperity of 1863,
li^% and 1865, or that the want of it is the cause of our
^uvs&ont stagnation.

In onler to reach a satisfactory understanding of th6 currency
question, it is necessary to consider somewhat fully the nature
^nsl functions of money, or any substitute for it.

The theory of money which formed the basis of the " mer-
cantile system " of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries has
Uvn rejected by all leading financiers and political economists
\\\x the last seventy-five years. That theory asserted that
uuMU*y is wealth ; that the great object of every nation should
tu* to increase its amount of gold and silver ; that this was a
slireet increase of national wealth. It is now held as an indis-
|MitabIe truth, that money is an instrument of trade, and pcr-
|\nins but two functions. It is a measure of value and a medium
\if exchange.

In cases of simple barter, where no money is used, we esti-
nuite the relative values of the commodities to be exchanged
in dollars and cents, it being our only universal measure of
value. As a medium of exchange, money is to all business
transactions what ships are to the transportation of merchandise.
If a hundred vessels of a given tonnage are just sufficient to
carry all the commodities between two ports, any increase of
the number of vessels will correspondingly decrease the value
of each as an instrument of commerce ; any decrease below one
hundred will correspondingly increase the value of each. If the
number be doubled, each will carry but half its usual freight,
will be worth but half its former value for that trade. There is

L

THE CURRENCY. 293

so much work to be done, and no more. A hundred vessels can
do it all. A thousand can do no more than all. The functions
of money as a medium of exchange, though more complicated
in their application, are precisely the same in principle as the
functions of the vessels in the case I have supposed.

If we could ascertain the total value of all the exchanges
effected in this country by means of money in any year, and
could ascertain how many dollars* worth of such exchanges can
be effected in a year by one dollar in money, we should know
how much money the country needed for the business transac-
tions of that year. Any decrease below that amount will cor-
respondingly increase the value of each dollar as an instrument
of exchange. Any increase above that amount will corre-
spondingly decrease the value of each dollar. If that amount
be doubled, each dollar of the whole mass will perform but half
the amount of business it did before ; will be worth but half its
former value as a medium of exchange.* Recurring to our illus-
tration : if, instead of sailing-vessels, steam-vessels were substi-
tuted, a much smaller tonnage would be required ; so, if it were
found that $500,000,000 of paper, each worth seventy cents in
gold, were sufficient for the business of the country, it is equally
evident that $350,000,000 of gold substituted for the paper
would perform precisely the same amount of business.

It should be remembered, also, that any improvement in the
mode of transacting business, by which the actual use of money
is in part dispensed with, reduces the total amount needed by
the country. How much has been accomplished in this direc-
tion by recent improvements in banking, may be seen in the
operations of the clearing-houses in our great cities. The rec-
ords of the New York clearing-house show that from October
II, 1853, the date of its establishment, to October 11, 1867,
the exchanges amounted to nearly $180,000,000,000; to effect
which, less than $8,000,000,000 of money were used ; an aver-
age of about four per cent; that is, exchanges were made to
the amount of $100,000,000 by the payment of $4,000,000 of
money. It is also a settled principle, that all deposits in banks
drawn upon by checks and drafts really serve the purpose of
money.

The amount of currency needed in the country depends, as
we have seen, upon the amount of business transacted by means
of money. The amount of business, however, is varied by

294 '^^^ CURRENCY.

many causes which are irregular and uncertain in their opera-
tion. An Indian war, deficient or abundant harvests, an over-
flow of the cotton lands of the South, a bread famine or a war
in Europe, and a score of such causes entirely beyond the reach
of legislation, may make money deficient this year and abun-
dant next. The needed amount varies, also, from month to
month in the same year. More money is required in the au-
tumn, when the vast products of agriculture are being moved
to market, than when the great army of laborers are in winter
quarters, awaiting the seedtime.

When the money of the country is gold and silver, it adapts
itself to the fluctuations of business without the aid of legisla-
tion. If, at any time, we have more than is needed, the surplus
flows off to other countries through the channels of international
commerce. If less, the deficiency is supplied through the same
channels. Thus the monetary equilibrium is maintained. So
immense is the trade of the world, that the golden streams pour-
ing from California and Australia into the specie circulation are
soon absorbed in the great mass and equalized throughout the
world, as the waters of all the rivers are spread upon the sur-
face of all the seas. Not so, however, with an inconvertible
paper currency. Excepting the specie used in payment of cus-
toms and the interest on our public debt, we are cut off from
the money currents of the world. Our currency resembles
rather the waters of an artificial lake, which lie in stagnation or
rise to full banks at the caprice of the gate-keeper. Gold and
silver abhor depreciated paper money, and will not keep com-
pany with it. If our currency be more abundant than business
demands, not a dollar of it can go abroad ; if deficient, not a
dollar of gold will come in to supply the lack. There is no
legislature on earth wise enough to adjust such a currency to
the wants of the country.

Let us examine more minutely the effect of such a currency
upon prices. Suppose that the business transactions of the
country at the present time require $350,000,000 in gold. It
is manifest that if there are just $350,000,000 of legal-tender
notes, and no other money in the country, each dollar will per-
form the full functions of a gold dollar, so far as the work of
exchange is concerned. Now, business remaining the same, let
$350,000,000 more of the same kind of notes be pressed into
circulation. The whole volume, as thus increased, can do no

THE CURRENCY. 295

more than all the business. Each dollar will accomplish just
half the work that a dollar did before the increase ; but as the
nominal dollar is fixed by law, the effect is shown in prices be-
ing doubled. It requires two of these dollars to make the same
purchase that one dollar made before the increase. It would
require some time for the business of the country to adjust itself
to the new conditions, and great derangement of values would
ensue; but the result would at last be reached in all transac-
tions which are controlled by the law of demand and supply.

No such change of values can occur without cost Somebody
must pay for it. Who pays in this case? We have seen that
doubling the currency finally results in reducing the purchasing
power of each dollar one half; hence every man who held a
legal-tender note at the time of the increase, and continued to
hold it till the full effect of the increase was produced, suffered
a loss of fifty per cent of its value ; in other words, he paid a
tax to the amount of half of all the currency in his possession.
This new issue, therefore, by depreciating the value of all the
currency, cost the holders of the old issue $i75,ooo,cxx); and if
the new notes were received at their nominal value at the date
of issue, their holders paid a tax of $175,000,000 more. No
more unequal or unjust mode of taxation could possibly be de-
vised. It would be tolerated only by being so involved in the
transactions of business as to be concealed from observation ;
but it would be no less real because hidden.

But some one may say, " This depreciation would fall upon
capitalists and rich men who are able to bear it." If this
were true, it would be no less unjust. But, unfortunately, the
capitalists would suffer less than any other class. The new issue
would be paid in the first place in large amounts to the creditors
of the government; it would pass from their hands before the
depreciation had taken full effect, and, passing down step by
step through the ranks of middle-men, the dead weight would
fall at last upon the laboring classes in the increased price of all
the necessaries of life. It is well known that, in a general rise
of prices, wages are among the last to rise. This principle was
illustrated in the report of the Special Commissioner of the
Revenue for the year i866. It is there shown that from the
beginning of the war to the end of 1866 the average price of all
commodities had risen ninety per cent. Wages, however, had
risen but sixty per cent. A day's labor would purchase but two

296 THE CURRENCY.

thirds as much of the necessaries of life as it did before. The
wrong is therefore inflicted on the laborer long before his in-
come can be adjusted to his increased expenses. It was in view
of this truth that Daniel Webster said in one of his ablest
speeches : " Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring
classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that
which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effect-
ual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of
the poor man's brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive
taxation, — these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of
the community, compared with a fraudulent currency and the
robberies committed by depreciated paper." ^

The fraud committed and the burdens imposed upon the
people, in the case we have supposed, would be less intolerable
if all business transactions could be really adjusted to the new
conditions; but even this is impossible. All debts would be
cancelled, all contracts fulfilled, by payment in these notes, —
not at their real value, but for their face. All salaries fixed by
law, the pay of every soldier in the army, of every sailor in the
navy, and all pensions and bounties, would be reduced to half
their former value. In these cases the effect is only injurious.
Let it never be forgotten that every depreciation of our cur-
rency results in robbing the one hundred and eighty thousand
pensioners, maimed heroes, crushed and bereaved widows, and
homeless orphans, who sit helpless at our feet. And who would
be benefited by this policy? A pretence of apology might be
offered for it if the government could save what the people lose.
But the system lacks the support of even that selfish and im-
moral consideration. The depreciation caused by the over-issue
in the case wc have supposed, compels the government to pay
just that per cent more on all the contracts it makes, on all the
loans it negotiates, on all the supplies it purchases; and to
crown all, it must at last redeem all its legal-tender notes in gold
coin, dollar for dollar. And yet the advocates of repudiation
have been bold enough to deny this !

I have thus far considered the influence of a redundant paper
currency on the country when its trade and industry are in a
healthy and normal state. I now call attention to its effect in
producing an unhealthy expansion of business, in stimulating
speculation and extravagance, and in laying the sure foundation

1 Works. Vol. III. p. 395.

THE CURRENCY. 297

of commercial revulsion and wide-spread ruin. This principle
is too well understood to require any elaboration here. The
history of all modern nations is full of examples. One of the
ablest American writers on banks and banking, Mr. Gouge, thus
sums up the result of his researches: "The history of all our
bank pressures and panics has been the same, in 1825, in 1837,
and in 1 843 ; and the cause is given in these two simple words,
universal expansion." And such is the testimony of all the
highest authorities.

There still remains to be considered the effect of depreciated
currency on our trade with other nations. By raising prices at
home higher than they are abroad, imports are largely increased
beyond the exports ; our coin goes abroad, or, what is far worse
for us, our bonds, which have also suffered depreciation, go
abroad, and are purchased by foreigners at seventy cents on the
dollar. During the whole period of high prices occasioned by
the war, gold and bonds have been steadily going abroad, not-
withstanding our tariff duties, which average nearly fifty per cent
ad valorem. More than five hundred million dollars of our bonds
are now held in Europe, ready to be thrown back upon us when
any war or other sufficient disturbance shall occur. No tariff
rates short of actual prohibition can prevent this outflow of gold
while our currency is thus depreciated. During these years, also,
our merchant marine steadily decreased, and our shipbuilding
interests were nearly ruined. Our tonnage engaged in foreign
trade, which amounted in 1859-60 to more than two and a half
million tons, had fallen in 1865-66 to less than one and a half
millions, a decrease of more than fifty per cent ; and prices of
labor and material are still too hfgh to enable our shipwrights
to compete with foreign builders.

From the facts already exhibited in reference to our industrial
revolution, and from the foregoing analysis of the nature and
functions of currency, it is manifest, —

1. That the remarkable prosperity of all industrial enter-
prise during the war was not caused by the abundance of cur-
rency, but by the unparalleled demand for every product of
labor.

2. That the great depression of business, the stagnation of
trade, the hard times which have prevailed during the past
year, and which still prevail, have not been caused by an insuffi-
cient amount of currency, but mainly by the great falling off of

2p8

THE CURRENCY.

the demand for all the products of labor compared with the
increased supply since the return from war to peace.

I should be satisfied to rest on these propositions without
further argument, were it not that the declaration is so often and
so confidently made by members of this House, that there is not
only no excess of currency, but that there is not enough for the
business of the country. I subjoin a table, carefully made up
from the official records, showing the amount of paper money
in the United States at the beginning of each year from 1834 to
1868, inclusive. The fractions of millions are omitted.

Millions.

Millions.

Millions.

Millions.

1834 . .

95

1843 •

• 59

1852 .

. 150

1861 .

202

183s . •

104

1844 .

• 75

1853 .

146

1862 .

. 218

1836 . .

140

1845 .

• 90

1854 .

205

1863 . .

529

1837 . .

- 149

1846 .

. 105

1855 .

. 187

1864 .

. 636

1838 .

. 116

1847 ■

. 106

1856 .

. 196

1865 .

948

1839 .

• '35

1848 .

. 129

1857 .

. 215

1866 .

. 919

1840 . .

. 107

1849 •

. 115

1858 .

• '35

1867 .

. 852

I84I .

. 107

1850 .

• 13'

1859 . .

'93

1868 .

767

1842 .

. 84

1851 .

• '55

i860 . .

207

To obtain a full exhibit of the circulating medium of the
country for these years, it would be necessary to add to the
above the amount of coin in circulation each year. This amount
cannot be ascertained with accuracy ; but it is the opinion of
those best qualified to judge that there was about $200,000,000
of gold and silver coin in the United States at the beginning
of the rebellion. It is officially known that the amount held
by the banks from i860 to 1863 inclusive averaged about
$97,000,000. Including bank reserves, the total circulation of
coin and paper never exceeded $400,000,000 before the war.
Excluding the bank reserves, the amount was never much above
$300,000,000. During the twenty-six years preceding the war,
the average bank circulation was less than $139,000,000.

It is estimated that the amount of coin now in the United
States is not less than $250,000,000. When it is remembered
that there are now $106,000,000 of coin in the Treasury, that
customs duties and interest on the public debt are paid in coin
alone, and that the currency of the States and Territories of the
Pacific coast is wholly metallic, it will be seen that a large sum
of gold and silver must be added to the volume of paper cur-
rency in order to ascertain the whole amount of our circula-
tion. It cannot be successfully controverted that the gold,

THE CURRENCY. 299

silver, and paper used as money in this country at this time
amount to $i,ooo,cxx),cxx). If we subtract from this amount our
bank reserves, — which amounted on the ist of January last to
$162,500,000, and also the cash in the national treasury, which
at that time amounted to $134,000,000, — we still have left in
active circulation more than seven hundred million dollars.

It rests with those who assert that our present amount of
currency is insufficient, to show that one hundred and fifty per
cent more currency is now needed for the business of the coun-
try than was needed in i860. To escape this difficulty, it has
been asserted by some honorable members that the country
never had currency enough, and that credit was substituted
before the war to supply the lack of money. It is a perfect
answer to this that in many of the States a system of free bank-
ing prevailed ; and such banks pushed into circulation all the
money they could find a market for.

The table I have submitted shows how perfect an index the
currency is of the healthy or unhealthy condition of business,
and that every great financial crisis for the period covered by
the table has been preceded by a great increase and followed by
a great and sudden decrease in the volume of paper money.
The rise and fall of mercury in the barometer is not more surely
indicative of an atmospheric storm than a sudden increase or
decrease of currency is indicative of financial disaster. Within
the period covered by the table there were four financial and
commercial crises in this country. They occurred in 1837,
1841, 1854, and 1857. Now observe the change in the volume
of paper currency for those years.

On the 1st day of January, 1837, ^^ amount had risen to
$149,000,000, an increase of nearly fifty per cent in three years.
Before the end of that year, the reckless expansion, speculation,
and overtrading which caused the increase, had resulted in terri-
ble collapse; and on the ist of January, 1838, the volume was
reduced to $1 16,000,000. Wild lands, which speculation had
raised to fifteen and twenty dollars per acre, fell to one dollar and
a half and two dollars, accompanied by a corresponding depres-
sion in all branches of business. Immediately after the crisis of
1841 the bank circulation decreased twenty-five percent, and by
the end of 1842 was reduced to $58,500,000, a decrease of nearly
fifty per cent.

At the beginning of 1853 the amount was $146,000,000.

>w

THE CURRENCY.

S|>cciiIation and expansion had swelled it to $205,000,000 by
the end of that year, and thus introduced .the crash of 1854.
At the beginning of 1857 the paper money of the country
reuched its highest point of inflation up to that time. There
wuii nearly $2 1 5 »ooo,ooo, but at the end of that disastrous year
the volume had fallen to $135,000,000, a decrease of nearly forty
per cent in less than twelve months. In the great crashes pre-
ceding 1837 the same conditions are invariably seen, — great
expansion, followed by a violent collapse, not only in paper
money, but in loans and discounts ; and those manifestations
have always been accompanied by a corresponding fluctuation
in prices. In the great crash of 18 19, one of the severest this
country ever sufiered, there was a complete prostration of busi-
ness. It is recorded in Niles's Register for 1820 that in that
year an Ohio miller sold four barrels of flour to raise five dol-
lars, the amount of his subscription to that paper. Wheat was
twenty cents per bushel and corn ten cents. About the same
time Mr. Jefferson wrote to Nathaniel Macon : " We have now
no standard of value. I am asked eighteen dollars for a yard of
broadcloth which, when we had dollars, I used to get for eighteen
shillings."

But the advocates of paper-money expansion answer us : It
makes no difference what your reasoning may be ; we allege the
fact that there is great stringency in our money market, great
depression in business, and the high rate of interest everywhere
demanded, especially in the West, proves conclusively that an
increase of currency is needed.

The relation of business to the supply of money and to the
rate of interest has never been so strikingly illustrated as in
the financial and business history of Europe during the past
two years. At the beginning of 1866 there was great activity
and apparent prosperity in the business of Europe. It was a
period of speculation and overtrading. About the middle of
that year the depression commenced, which has continued and
increased till now, when the distress is greater and more wide-
spread than it has been for a quarter of a century. From May,
1866, to the present time, the rate of interest in the principal
money centres of Europe has been steadily decreasing. The
following table, collated from the London Economist, exhibits
the fact that the average decline in nine kingdoms of Europe is
fifty per cent.

THE CURRENCY.

301

RATE OF INTEREST.

May, 1866.
Per cent.

London 7

Paris 4

Berlin 5

Vienna 7

Frankfort .... 6

Amsterdam . . . 6^

March, 1868.
Per cent

2
li

3

4

3

May, 1866. March, 1868.
Per cent. Per cent.

Turin . . .
Madrid . . .
Brussels . .
Hamburg . .
St. Petersburg

6

9

S
7
7

5

5

2
2

8

It will be noticed that the rate is lowest in specie-paying
countries, and highest where there is a large volume of depre-
ciated paper money, as in Russia, Spain, and Italy. But the
important fact exhibited in this table is, that as commercial
distress has increased, the rate of interest has decreased, and
that hard times have been accompanied by an abundant sup-
ply of money. It would be as reasonable for an Englishman
to assert that the distress and stagnation of business there
has been caused by the plethora of money and the low rate of
interest, as for us to claim that our distress is caused by an in-
sufficient currency and a high rate of interest. There, as here,
the distress was caused by overproduction and overtrading.
England thought to grow rich out of our misfortunes, and, in her
greed, overreached herself and brought misery and ruin upon
millions of her people. As a specimen of her crazy expansion
of business, witness the fact that in the years 1863, 1864, and
1865, in addition to all other enterprises, there were organized
eight hundred and thirty-two joint-stock companies, with an
authorized capital of ;^363,ooo,cxx) sterling. During 1866 and
1867, there were organized but seventy-one such companies,
with an authorized capital of less than ;^ 16,500,000 sterling.

The Bankers' Magazine of London, for May, 1867, says:
** In the vaults of the Bank of England, the Bank of France,
and in Amsterdam, Frankfort, Hamburg, and Berlin, there are
^75,000,000; the rate of discount averages three per cent,
and is tending downward ; yet in each and every one of these
cities complaints of the scarcity of money were never more
rife." At the end of 1867, the same Magazine says, there were
^^23, 500,000 sterling gold in the Bank of England, besides
j^i4,ooo,ooo of coin and paper reserves, but " not the slightest
life in trade." The London Times of December 20, 1867, says:
" We are now paying the penalty of wild speculation and over-
trading. For eighteen months, all but the ordinary business of

302 THE CURRENCY.

the country is at a stand-still Millions on millions an

lying useless in the various banks of the country because the
owners of the money cannot yet prevail upon themselves tc
trust it in any of the ordinary investments."

From these facts it is evident that those who attribute oui
hard times to a reduction of the currency will find themselve*
unable to explain the hard times in Europe.

We are constantly reminded that the country was prosperous
at the beginning of 1866, before the currency was reduced, bu
is in distress since the reduction; and these two facts are as-
sumed to sustain the relation to each other of cause and effect
Now let it be observed that since January, 1866, the volume o
paper currency has been reduced sixteen and a half per cent
but during the same time there has been an average decline ir
prices of not less than twenty per cent ; that is, eighty cents ir
currency will purchase as many commodities now as a dollai
would two years ago ; and there is eighty-three and a half cents
in currency now to every dollar then. The gold value of oui
whole volume of currency in January, 1868, was but three anc
two thirds per cent less than the gold value of the whole vol
ume in January, 1866. The advocates of expansion shoulc
prove that there has been a reduction in the purchasing powei
of our currency before they deplore the fact.

That there is an apparent stringency in our money markei
generally, and a relative scarcity of currency in the VVest, can-
not be doubted. During the past winter, especially, it has beer
and still is very difficult in the West to obtain money on gooc
business paper. The causes of this are to be found in the
improper adjustment of our financial machinery, and in the
great uncertainty attending our financial legislation. It is i
Well-settled principle that an irredeemable currency tends tc
find its way to the money centres, and stay there. Most unfor-
tunately for the interest of the country, the national banks have
been allowed to receive interest on the deposits they make ir
the banks at the great money centres. Most of the country
banks, therefore, send all their surplus funds to New York, anc
will not loan money unless they can receive a higher rate thar
is paid them there. For all practical purposes their notes arc
equal to greenbacks, and they are never called upon to redeerr
them. Thus we have a plethora of money in New York and a
few other cities, and a scarcity in the country. We are finan-

THE CURRENCY. 303

cially in the condition of a sick man suffering with congestive
chilis ; the blood rushes to the heart, and leaves the extremities
chilled and paralyzed.

The fluctuation of values caused by the uncertainty of our
situation offers a great temptation to engage in stock and gold
speculation ; and hence men who would otherwise be honest
producers of wealth rush to the gold-room or the stock-market
and become the most desperate of gamblers, putting up for-
tunes to be lost or won on the chances of a day. These men
pay enormous margins on their purchases and extravagant
interest on their loans. There are tons of paper money at the
great commercial centres, to which it flows from all quarters to
meet the insane demands of Wall Street. Recently a clique of
these operators locked up $25,000,000 of greenbacks, and upon
them, as a special deposit, borrowed $20,000,000 more for the
purpose of creating a sudden stringency in the money market
and placing gold and stocks at their mercy. The vast amount
of money daily loaned on call in Wall Street, at a high rate of
interest, shows how the currency of the country is being used.
So long as the national government takes no steps toward re-
deeming its own paper, so long will there be nothing to call
the notes of the country banks back home ; so long will there
be no healthy and equal circulation of the currency. If
$200,000,000 more currency were now issued, I do not doubt
that within two months there would be the same want of money
in the rural districts that now prevails. The surplus would flow
to the money centres, and the increased prices would make our
condition worse than before. It ought not to be forgotten that
while the capitalist and speculator are able to take advantage
of fluctuations in prices, the poor man has no such power.
The necessities of life he must buy day by day, whatever the
price may be. He offers for sale only his labor. That he must
sell each day. or it will be wholly lost. He is absolutely at
the mercy of the market.

But the most serious evil growing out of the condition of our
currency is the fact that we have now no fixed and determinate
standard, of value. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate this
evil. If a snowball, made at the beginning of winter and ex-
posed to freezing and thawing, snowfall and rainfall, weighed
every day at noon, were made the lawful pound avoirdupois for
this country during the winter, we can hardly conceive the con-

304 THE CURRENCY.

fusion and injustice that would attend all transactions depending
on weight. The evil, however, would not be universal. Linear,
liquid, and many other measures would not be affected by it.
But a change of the money standard reaches all values. No
transaction escapes. The money unit is the universal measure
of value throughout the world. Since the dawn of civilization,
the science, the art, the statesmanship of the world, have been
put in requisition to devise and maintain an unvarying, and, as
far as possible, an invariable standard. For thousands of years
gold and silver of a certain weight and fineness have been
adopted as the nearest approach to perfection; but even the
slight variation in value to which coin is subject from clipping
and wear has brought nations to the verge of revolution. No
one can read Macaulay's account of the recoinage in England, in
the days of William and Mary, without perceiving how directly
the happiness and prosperity of a nation depend upon the
stability of its money unit. He says, " It may well be doubted
whether all the misery which had been inflicted on the English
nation in a quarter of a century by bad kings, bad ministers,
bad Parliaments, and bad judges, was equal to the misery
caused in a single year by bad crowns and bad shillings.'* ^

To rescue the nation from the evils of bad shillings, Newton
was called from his high realm of discovery, Locke from his
profound meditations, Somers and Montague from their seats in
Parliament, and these illustrious men spent months in most
devoted effort to restore to the realm its standard of value.
What could now be of greater service to our country than to
direct its highest wisdom and statesmanship to the restoration
of our standard? For three quarters of a century the dollar
has been our universal measure. A coin containing 23^^^
grains of pure gold stamped at the national mint has been our-
only definition of the word dollar. The dollar is the gauge
that measures every blow of the axe, every swing of the scythe,
every stroke of the hammer, every fagot that blazes on the
poor man's hearth, every fabric that clothes his children, every
mouthful that feeds their hunger. The word dollar is the
substantive word, — the fundamental condition of every con-
tract, of every sale, of every payment, whether from the
national Treasury or from the stand of the apple- woman in the
street Now, what is our situation? There has been no day

\ 1 History, Vol. IV. p. 498 (Harper's ed.).

THE CURRENCY. 305

since the 25th of February, 1862, when any man could tell
what would be the value of our legal-currency dollar the next
month or the next day. Since that day we have substituted
for a dollar the printed promise of the government to pay a
dollar. That promise we have broken. We have suspended
payment, and have by law compelled the citizen to receive
dishonored paper in place of money. The value of the paper
standard thus forced upon the country by the necessities of the
war has changed every day, and almost every hour of the day,
for six years. The value of our paper dollar has passed by
thousands of fluctuations from one hundred cents to thirty-
five cents, and back again to seventy. During the war, in the
midst of high prices and large profits, this fluctuation was tol-
erable. Now that we are making our way back toward old
prices and more moderate gains, now that the pressure of hard
times is upon us, this uncertainty in our standard of value is an
almost intolerable evil. The currency, not being based upon
a foundation of real and certain value, and possessing no ele-
ment of self-adjustment, depends for its market value on a score
of causes. It is a significant and humiliating fact that the
business men of the nation are in constant dread of Congress.
Will Congress increase the currency, or contract it? Will new
greenbacks be issued with which to take up the bonds, or will
new bonds be issued to absorb the greenbacks? Will the na-
tional banking system be perpetuated and enlarged, or will it
be abolished to enable the general government to turn banker?
These and a score of kindred questions are agitating the public
mind, and changing our standard of value with every new turn
Jn the tide of Congressional opinion. Monday is a dangerous
day for the business of this country while Congress is in ses-
sion. The broadside of financial resolutions fired from this
House on that day could have no such effect as it now produces,
if our currency were based on a firm foundation.

Observe how the people pay for this fluctuation of values.
Importers, wholesale merchants, and manufacturers, knowing
the uncertainties of trade which result from this changeable
standard, raise their prices to cover risks ; the same thing is
done again by retail dealers and middle-men ; and the whole
burden falls at last upon the consumer, — the laboring man.
And yet we hear honorable gentlemen singing the praises

of cheap money ! The vital and incurable evil of an inconvert-
voL. I. 20

306 THE CURRENCY.

ible paper currency is that it has no elasticity, — no quality
whereby it adjusts itself to the necessities and contingencies of
business.

But there is one quality of such a currency more remarkable
than all others, — its strange power to delude men. The spells
and enchantments of legendary witchcraft were hardly so won-
derful. Most delusions cannot be repeated, — they lose their
power after a full exposure ; but not so with irredeemable paper
money. From the days of John Law its history has been a
repetition of the same story, with only this difference : no nation
now resorts to its use except from overwhelming necessity ; but
whenever any nation is fairly embarked, it floats on the delusive
waves, and, like the lotus-eating companions of Ulysses, wishes
to return home no more.

Into this very delusion many of our fellow-citizens and many
members of this House have fallen. Hardly a member of either
House of the Thirty-seventh or Thirty-eighth Congress spoke
on the subject who did not deplore the necessity of resorting
to inconvertible paper money, and protest against its continu-
ance a single day beyond the inexorable necessities of the war.
The remarks of Mr. Fessenden, when he reported the first legal-
tender bill from the Finance Committee of the Senate, in Feb-
ruary, 1862, fully exhibit the sentiment of Congress at that time.
He assured the country that the measure was not to be resorted
to as a policy ; that it was what it professed to be, a temporary
expedient; that he agreed with the declaration of the chairman
of the Committee of Ways and Means of the House, that it was
not contemplated to issue more than $1 50,000,000 of legal-tender
notes. Though he aided in passing the bill, he uttered a warning,
the truth and force of which few then questioned. He said : —

" All the opinions that I have heard expressed agree in this, that only
with extreme reluctance, only with fear and trembling as to the conse-
quences, can we have recourse to a measure like this of making our paper
a legal tender in the payment of debts

" All the gentlemen who have spoken on the subject, and all pretty
much who have written on the subject, except some wild speculators in
currency, have declared that, as a policy, it would be ruinous to any
people ; and it has been defended, as I have stated, simply and solely
upon the ground that it is to be a single measure standing by itself, and
not to be repeated

" Again, sir, it necessarily changes the values of all property. It is
very well known that all over the world gold and silver are recognized as

THE CURRENCY, 307

money, as currency ; they are the measure of value. We change it here.
What is the result? Inflation, subsequent depression, — all the evils
which follow from an inflated currency. They cannot be avoided ; they
are inevitable ; the consequence is admitted. Although the notes, to be
sure, pass precisely at par, gold appreciates, property appreciates, — all
kinds of property." ^

This, I repeat, was the almost unanimous sentiment of the
Thirty-seventh Congress; and though subsequent necessity
compelled both that and the Thirty-eighth Congress to make
new issues of paper, yet the danger was always confessed, and
the policy and purpose of speedy resumption were kept steadily
in view. So anxious were the members of the Thirty-eighth
Congress that the temptation to new issues should not over-
come them or their successors, that they bound themselves by a
kind of financial temperance pledge that there never should be
a further increase of legal-tender notes. Witness the following
clause of the Loan Act of June 30, 1864: —

"Sec. 2. . . . /y^/V/<f^, That the total amount of bonds and Treasury
notes authorized by the first and second sections of this act shall not
excee.d ^400,000,000 in addition to the amounts heretofore issued ; nor
shall the total amount of United States notes, issued or to be issued,
ever exceed ^400,000,000, and such additional sum, not exceeding
$50,000,000, as may be temporarily required for the redemption of
temporary loan."

Here is a solemn pledge to the public creditors, a compact
with them, that the government will never issue non-intcrest-
paying notes beyond the sum total of $450,000,000. When the
war ended, the Thirty-ninth Congress, adopting the views of its
predecessors on this subject, regarded the legal-tender currency
a part of the war machinery, and proceeded to reduce and with-
draw it in the same manner in which the army and navy and
other accompaniments of the war were reduced. Ninety-five
gentlemen who now occupy seats in this Hall were members of
this House on the i8th of December, 1865, when it was resolved,
by a vote of 144 yeas to 6 nays, —

" That this House cordially concurs in the views of the Secretary of
the Treasury in relation to the necessity of a contraction of the currency
with a view to as early a resumption of specie pa)Tnents as the business
interests of the country will permit ; and we hereby pledge co-operative
action to this end as speedily as practicable."

* Congressional Globe, Feb. 12, 1862, pp. 763-765.

308 THE CURRENCY.

Since the passage of that resolution, the currency has been
reduced by an amount less than one sixth of its volume, and
what magic wonders have been wrought in the opinions of mem-
bers of this House and among the financial philosophers of the
country? A score of honorable gentlemen have exhausted
their eloquence in singing the praises of greenbacks. They
insist that, at the very least. Congress should at once set the
printing-presses in motion to restore the $70,000,000 of national
treasure so ruthlessly reduced to ashes by the incendiary torch
of the Secretary of the Treasury. One, claiming that this would
be a poor and meagre offering to the offended paper god, intro-
duces a bill to print and issue $140,000,000 more. The phi-
losopher of Lewiston, the Democratic representative of the Ninth
District of Illinois,^ thinks that a new issue of $700,000,000 will
for the present meet the wants of the country. Another, per-
ceiving that the national-bank notes are dividing the honors
with greenbacks, proposes to abolish these offending corpora-
tions, and, in lieu of their notes, issue $300,000,000 in green-
backs, and thus increase the active circulation by over one
hundred millions, — the amount now held as bank reserves.
And, finally, the Democratic masses of the West are rallying
under the leadership of the coming man, the young statesman
of Cincinnati, who proposes to cancel with greenbacks the
$1,500,000,000 of five-twenty bonds, and with his election to the
Presidency usher in the full millennial glory of paper money !
And this is the same George H. Pendleton who denounced as
unconstitutional the law which authorized the first issue of
greenbacks, and concluded an elaborate speech against the
passage of the bill in 1862 with these words: —

" You send these notes out into the world stamped with irredeem-
ability. You put on them the mark of Cain, and, like Cain, they will go
forth to be vagabonds and fugitives on the earth. What, then, will be
the consequence ? It requires no prophet to tell what will be their his-
tory. The currency will be expanded \ prices will be inflated ; fixed
values will depreciate ; incomes will be diminished ; the savings of the
poor will vanish ; the hoardings of the \vidow will melt away ; bonds,
mortgages, and notes, everything of fixed value, will lose their value ;
everything of changeable value will be appreciated ; the necessaries of
life will rise in value Contraction will follow. Private ruin and

public bankruptcy, either with or without repudiation, will inevitably
foUow."2

1 Mr. Ross. 2 Congressional Globe, Jan. 29, 1862, p. 551.

THE CURRENCY. 309

The chief cause of this new-born zeal for paper money is the
same as that which led a member of the Continental Congress
to exclaim : " Do you think, gentlemen, that I will consent to
load my constituents with taxes, when we can send to our printer
and get a wagon-load of money, one quire of which will pay for
the whole ? "

The simple fact in the case is that Congress went resolutely
and almost unanimously forward in the policy of gradual re-
sumption of specie payments, and a return to the old standard
of values, until the pressure of falling prices and hard times
began to be felt; and now many are shrinking from the good
work they have undertaken, are turning back from the path
they so worthily resolved to pursue, and are asking Congress to
plunge the nation deeper than ever into the abyss from which
it has been struggling so earnestly to escape. Did any reflect-
ing man suppose it possible for the country to return from the
high prices, the enormous expansion of business, debt, and
speculation occasioned by the war, without much depression
and temporary distress? The wit of man has never devised a
method by which the vast commercial and industrial interests of
a nation can suffer the change from peace to war, and from war
back to peace, without hardship and loss. The homely old
maxim, " What goes up must come down," applies to our situa-
tion with peculiar force. The ** coming down " is inevitable.
Congress can only break the fall and mitigate its evils by ad-
justing the taxation, the expenditures, and the currency of the
country to the changed conditions of affairs. This it is our
duty to do with a firm and steady hand.

Much of this work has already been done. Our national
expenditures have been very considerably reduced, but the
work of retrenching expenditures can go, and should go, much
further. Very many, perhaps too many, of our national taxes
have been removed. But if this Congress shall consent to
break down the dikes, and let in on the country a new flood
of paper money for the temporary relief of business, we shall
see all the evils of our present situation return after a few
months with redoubled force. It is my clear conviction that
the most formidable danger with which the country is now
threatened is a large increase in the volume of paper money.

Shall we learn nothing from experience? Shall the warnings
of the past be unheeded? What other nation has so painfully

310 THE CURRENCY.

spelled out, letter by letter and word byword, the terrible mean-
ing of irredeemable paper money, whether known by the name
of Colonial bills, Continental currency, or notes of dishonored
banks? Most of the Colonies had suffered untold evils from
depreciated paper before the Revolution. Massachusetts issued
her first bills of credit in 1690 to meet a war debt, and after sixty
years of vain and delusive efforts to make worthless paper serve
the purposes of money, found her industry perishing under the
weight of Colony bills equal in nominal value to $11,000,000,
which, though made a legal tender and braced up by the sever-
est laws, were worth but twelve per cent of their face. So in
1750, under the lead of Hutchinson, a far-sighted and coura-
geous statesman, she resumed specie payment, cancelled all
her bills, prohibited by law the circulation of paper money
within her borders, and made it a crime punishable by a fine of
£iQO for any Governor to approve any bill to make it a legal
tender. For the next quarter of a century Massachusetts en-
joyed the blessings of a sound currency. Rhode Island clung
to the delusion many years longer. More than one hundred
pages of Arnold's History of that Colony are devoted to por-
traying the distress and confusion resulting from this cause
alone. The history of every Colony that issued bills is a repe-
tition of the same sad story.

The financial history of the Revolution is too familiar to need
repetition here, but there are points in that history of which an
American Congress cannot be too often reminded. Nowhere
else were all the qualities of irredeemable paper money so fully
exhibited. From the first emission of $2,000,000, in 1775, till
the last, in 1781, when $360,000,000 had been issued, there ap-
peared to be a purpose, perpetually renewed but always broken,
to restrict the amount and issue no more. Each issue was to be
the last. But notwithstanding the enormous volume reluctantly
put in circulation, our fathers seemed to believe that its value
could be kept up by legislation. They denounced in resolutions
of Congress the first depreciation of these bills as the work of
enemies; and in January, 1776, resolved, **That if any person
shall hereafter be so lost to all virtue and regard for his coun-
try as to refuse to receive said bills in payment, etc., he shall
be treated as an enemy of his country, and precluded from all
trade or intercourse with the inhabitants of these Colonics."

But they found before the struggle ended that the inexorable

THE CURRENCY. 311

laws of value were above human legislation; that resolutions
cannot nullify the truths of the multiplication table. The bills
passed nearly at par until the issues exceeded $9,000,000. At
the end of 1776 they were worth seventy-five per cent of their
nominal value; at the end of 1777, twenty-five; at the end of
1778, sixteen; at the end of 1779, two and a half; and at the
end of 1780 they were worth but one cent on the dollar. Four
months later $500 in Continental bills was selling for one dollar
in specie. Pelatiah Webster, in 1 791, said: —

" The fatal error that the credit and currency of Continental money
could be kept up and supported by acts of compulsion entered so deep
into the mind of Congress and of all departments of administration
through the States, that no considerations of justice, religion, or policy,
or even experience of its utter inefficacy, could eradicate it : it seemed to
be a kind of obstinate delirium, totally deaf to every argument drawn
fh)m justice and right, from its natural tendency and mischief, from

common sense and even common safety This ruinous principle

was continued in practice for five successive years, and appeared in all
shapes and forms, i. e. legal-tender acts, limitations of prices, in awful
and threatening declarations, in penal laws with dreadful and heinous

punishments Many thousand families of full and easy fortune were

ruined by these fatal measures, and lie in ruins to this day, without the
least benefit to the country, or to the great and noble cause in which
we were then engaged." *

In summing up the evils of the Continental currency, after
speaking of the terrible hardships of the war, the destruction of
property by the enemy, who at times during its progress held
eleven out of the thirteen State capitals, Mr. Webster, who had
seen it all, said : —

"Yet these evils were not as great as those which were caused by
Continental money and the consequent irregularities of the financial
system. We have suffered from this cause more than from every other
cause of calamity ; it has killed more men ; pervaded and corrupted the
choicest interests of our country more, and done more injustice than
even the arms and artifices of our enemies."

But let it never be forgotten that the fathers of the Revolution
saw, at last, the fatal error into which they had fallen; and
even in the midst of their great trials restored to the young
nation, then struggling for its existence, its standard of value,
its basis for honest and honorable industry. In 178 1 Robert

1 Political Essays, etc., (Philadelphia, 1791,) pp. 128, 129, note.

312 THE CURRENCY.

Morris was appointed Superintendent of Finance. He made a
return to specie payments the condition of his acceptance ; and
on the 22d of May Congress declared •* that the calculations of
the expenses of the present campaign shall be made in solid
coin " ; and " that, experience having evinced the inefficiency
of all attempts to support the credit of paper money by com-
pulsory acts, it is recommended to such States, where laws mak-
ing paper bills a tender yet exist, to repeal the same." Thus
were the financial interests of the nation rescued from dishonor
and utter ruin.

The state of the currency from the close of the war to the
establishment of the government under the Constitution was
most deplorable. The separate States had been seized with the
mania for paper money, and were rivalling each other in the
extravagance of their issues and the rigor of their financial
laws. One by one they were able at last to conquer the evils
into which paper money had plunged them. In 1786 James
Madison wrote from Richmond to General Washington the
joyful news that the Virginia Legislature had, by a majority of
eighty-four to seventeen, voted "paper money unjust, impolitic,
destructive of public and private confidence, and of that virtue
which is the basis of republican government."

The paper money of Massachusetts was the chief cause of
Shays's rebellion. The paper money of Rhode Island kept
that State for several years from coming into the Union.

Nearly half a century afterwards, Daniel Webster, reviewing
the financial history of the period now under consideration,
said : " From the close of the war to the time of the adoption
of this Constitution, as I verily believe, the people suffered as
much, except in loss of life, from the disordered state of the
currency and the prostration of commerce and business, as
they suffered during the war."

With such an experience, it is not wonderful that the framers
of our Constitution should have undertaken to protect their
descendants from the evils that they had themselves endured.

By reference to the Madison Papers,^ it will be seen that in
the first draft of the Constitution there was a clause giving
Congress the power " to borrow money, and emit bills, on the
credit of the United States." On the i6th of August, 1787, on
the final revision, Gouverneur Morris moved to strike out the

> Elliot's Debates, Vol. V. pp. 130, 378.

THE CURRENCY, 313

clause authorizing the emission of bills. Mr. Madison thought
it would be sufficient to forbid their being made a tender. Mr.
Ellsworth "thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar
the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various
experiments which had been made were now^ fresh in the public
mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of
America." Mr. Read ** thought the words, if not struck out,
would be as alarming as the mark of the beast in Revelation."
Mr. Langdon " had rather reject the whole plan than retain the
three words * and emit bills.* " The clause was stricken out by a
vote of nine States to two.^ August 28, Roger Sherman, remark-
ing that ** this is a favorable crisis for crushing paper money,"
moved to prohibit the States from emitting bills of credit, or
making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment
of debts. This clause was placed in the Constitution by a vote
of eight States to two.* Thus our fathers supposed they had
protected us against the very evil which now afflicts the nation.

The doctrines which I am advocating in reference to the evils
of an inconvertible currency are strongly corroborated by the
financial experience of Great Britain. One of the ablest of
English writers on finance thus sums up the history of panics
and commercial distress : —

" From the undue or unnecessary increase of the currency, which
could not take place if vhe whole were metallic, we have the origin and
sole cause of general speculation and overtrading, which proceed with
its increase, and in their progress demand or require new additions to
the circulation and credit ; and, from the consequent facility of obtaining
credit, may far outstrip the actual increase of the currency ; a state of
things that cannot be prolonged beyond the safety of the Bank,* which
again depends on the stock of her treasure ; the issues are then con-
tracted, this is followed by the contraction of the country circulation,
credit is destroyed, and suddenly our market assumes the appearance of
low prices, overproduction, or indefinite supply. If this principle is
applied to the contraction of our currency in 181 5 and 181 6, with the
low prices that followed ; its extension in 181 7 and 181 8, and the gen-
eral speculation, overtrading, and high prices that succeeded ; and, again,
to its contraction in 181 9, 1820, 1821, and 1822, and the general com-
plaint of abundance of foreign and home produce and low prices
that continued throughout these years ; and lastly to the increase of the
currency in 1824 and part of 1825, with the accompanying rage of

1 EUiot*s Debates, Vol. V. p. 435. 2 Ibid., Vol. V. p. 485.

* The Bank of England.

314 THE CURRENCY.

speculation, overtrading, and high prices that followed, we see the estab-
lishment of the principle in all its forms and effects." *

To review briefly the ground travelled over : we have seen
that the hard times and depression of business which the coun-
try is now suffering were caused in the first instance by the
great industrial revolution which grew out of the war, and that
its evils have been aggravated and are in danger of being indefi-
nitely continued by the unsettled condition of our currency, and
by the uncertainty of Congressional legislation; that we have
not now, and, without decisive legislation, cannot have, a fixed
standard of value, and therefore all trade and business are at
the mercy of political sensations and business intHgues, the evils
of which fall heaviest upon the laboring man ; that the greatest
financial danger which threatens us is that some of the schemes
now before Congress may result in a large increase of irredeem-
able paper money, for which there can be no defence except
such an overwhelming necessity as compelled Congress to use
it, in the moment of supreme peril, to save the life of the nation ;
that history is full of warnings against such a policy ; that dur-
ing our Colonial period, during the war of the Revolution, and
after the war, our fathers tested and practically exploded the
very theories now in vogue respecting paper money, and at-
tempted so to frame the Constitution as to shield us from the
calamities that they suffered ; and finally, that these views are
fully confirmed by the financial history of England. From
these considerations it appears to me that the first step toward
a settlement of our financial and industrial affairs should be to
adopt and declare to the country a fixed and definite policy, so
that industry and enterprise may be based upon confidence ; so
that men may know what to expect from the government ; and,
above all, that the course of business may be so adjusted that
it shall be governed by the laws of trade, and not by the caprice
of any man or of any political party in or out of Congress.

What has the Fortieth Congress done in reference to this sub-
ject? Thus far, nothing has been done, except to abandon the
policy which we have been pursuing for the past two years. By
joint resolution of January 23, 1868, it was ordered that there
shall be no further contraction of the currency; but the Commit-
tee of Ways and Means not only did not indicate what policy

1 Mushet : An Attempt to explain the Effect of the Issues of the Bank of
England, (London, 1826,) pp. 182, 183.

THE CURRENCY. 315

they should recommend, but they gave no reasons for the meas-
ure they reported, nor did they allow any debate or question by
others. I voted against that resolution, not because I was in
favor of continuing without change the policy we were then
pursuing, but because I believed, as has since been manifest,
that a large party in this House intended not to stop there, but
to make that resolution the first step toward inflation. Against
that policy I made the only protest left to me, by voting against
the first measure in the programme.

That contraction of the currency tended toward specie pay-
ments, few will deny; but that there were serious evils con-
nected with it is also manifest. The element of uncertainty was
the chief evil. It was never known whether the Secretary of
the Treasury would use the power placed in his hands during
any given month, or not ; and the stringency caused by con-
traction was always anticipated and generally exaggerated. The
actual contraction had far less influence on business than the
expectation of it In connection with this policy, the efforts of
the Secretary to keep the gold market steady by sales from the
Treasury increased the uncertainty, and led to a* very general
feeling that it was unwise to put the control of business and
prices, to so great an extent, in the hands of any one man ; es-
pecially of one so involved in the political antagonisms of the
hour as the present Secretary.

The financial schemes and plans now before Congress are so
numerous and so contradictory as to give us little hope that any
comprehensive policy can be agreed upon at present. For my-
self, I have but little faith in panaceas, — in remedies which will
cure all evils, — in any one plan which will reach all the difficul-
ties of our situation. Above all, it seems to me unwise to com-
plicate the questions that arc pressing for immediate solution
with those which refer to subjects not yet ripe for action. For
example, I have not yet seen the wisdom of making the redemp-
tion of the five-twenty bonds — not one of which is payable for
fourteen years to come — a prominent element in our legislation
at this time. In the midst of so many difficulties, it is better to
do one thing at a time, and to do it carefully and thoroughly.

On the lOth of February I introduced a bill which, if it
should become a law, will, I believe, go far toward restoring
confidence and giving stability to business; and will lay the
foundation on which a general financial policy may be based,

3i6 THE CURRENCY.

whenever opinions are so harmonized as to make a general
policy possible. As the bill is short, I will quote it entire, and
call attention for a few moments to its provisions : —

" A Bill to provide for a gradual return to Specie Payments.

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled. That on and after
the ist day of December, 1868, the Secretary of the Treasury be,
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay gold coin of the
United States for any legal-tender notes of the United States which
may be presented at the office of the Assistant Treasurer, at New York,
at the rate of one dollar in gold for one dollar and thirty cents in legal-
tender notes. On and after the ist day of January, 1869, the rate shall
be one dollar in gold for one dollar and twenty-nine cents in legal-tender
notes ; and at the beginning of and during each succeeding month the
amount of legal-tender notes required in exchange for one dollar in
gold shall be one cent less than the amount required during the pre-
ceding month, until the exchange becomes one dollar in gold for one
dollar in legal-tender notes ; and on and after the ist day of June, 187 1,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall exchange gold for legal-tender notes,
dollar for dollar: Provided, that nothing in this act shall be so con-
strued as to authorize the retirement or cancellation of any legal-tender
notes of the United States."

To all plans hitherto proposed it has been objected that the
vast amount of public debt yet to be funded, and the still larger
amount of private indebtedness, the value of which would be
changed in favor of the creditor and against the debtor, made
it impossible to return to specie payments without great loss
both to the government and to the debtor class. I have no
doubt that an immediate or sudden resumption of payments
would prove a heavy shock to business, and very greatly disturb
the present scale of values. These objections are almost wholly
avoided in the bill I have proposed, by making the return
gradual ; and the time when the process is to begin is placed so
far ahead as to give full notice and allow the country to adjust
its business to the provisions of the act. By the ist of Decem-
ber next, the floating and temporary debt of the United States
will be funded, in accordance with laws already in operation ;
the excitement and derangement of business incident to a Presi-
dential election will be over, and we ought to be ready at that
time, if ever, to take decisive steps toward the old paths. I do
not doubt that, in anticipation of the operation of this measure,

THE CURRENCY, llj

should it become a law, gold would be at 130, or lower, by the
1st of December, and that very little would be asked for, from
the Treasury, in exchange for currency. At the beginning of
each succeeding month, the exchange between gold and green-
backs would be reduced one cent, and specie payments would be
fully resumed in June, 1871. That the country is able to resume
by that time will hardly be denied. With the $100,000,000 of
gold now in the Treasury, and the amount received from cus-
toms, which averages nearly half a million per day, it is not at
all probable that we should need to borrow a dollar in order to
carry out the provisions of the law.

But taking the most unfavorable aspect of the case, and sup-
posing that the government should find it necessary to authorize
a gold loan, the expense would be trifling compared with the
resulting benefits to the country. The proposed measure would
incidentally bring all the national banks to the aid of the govern-
ment in the work of resumption. The banks are required by
law to redeem their own notes in greenbacks. They now hold in
their vaults, as a reserve required by law, $162,000,000, of which
sum $1 14,000,000 is in greenbacks. Being compelled to pay the
same price for their own notes as for greenbacks, they would
gradually accumulate a specie reserve, and would be compelled
to keep abreast of the government in every step of the progress
toward resumption. The necessity of redeeming their own
notes would keep their circulation nearer home, and would more
equally distribute the currency of the country, which now con-
centrates at the great money centres, and produces scarcity in
the rural districts. This measure would not at once restore the
old national standard of value, but it would give stability to
business and confidence to business men everywhere. Every
man who contracts a debt would know what the value of a
dollar would be when the debt became due. The opportunity
now aflforded to Wall Street gamblers to run up and run down
the relative price of gold and greenbacks would be removed.
The element of chance, which now vitiates our whole industrial
system, would in great part be eliminated.

If this measure be adopted, it will incidentally settle several
of our most troublesome questions. It will end the war between
the contractionists and the inflationists, — a war which, like that
of Marius and Sylla, may prove almost fatal to the interests of the
country, whichever side prevails. The amount of paper money

3i8 THE CURRENCY,

will regulate itself, and may be unlimited, so long as every
dollar is convertible into specie at the will of the holder.

The still more difficult question of paying our five-twenty
bonds would be avoided, — completely flanked by this measure.
The money paid to the wounded soldier, and to the soldier's
widow, would soon be made equal in value to the money paid
to all other creditors of the government.

It will be observed that the bill does not authorize the cancel-
lation or retirement of any United States notes. It is believed
that, for )a time at least, the volume of the currency may safely
remain as it now is. When the measure has been in force for
some time it will be seen whether the increased use of specie for
purposes of circulation will not allow a gradual reduction of the
legal-tender notes. This can be safely left to subsequent legis-
lation. It will facilitate the success of this plan, if Congress will
pass a bill to legalize contracts hereafter made for the payment
of coin. If this be done, many business men will conduct their
affairs on a specie basis, and thus retain at home much of our
gold that now goes abroad.

I have not been ambitious to add another to the many
financial plans proposed to this Congress, much less have I
sought to introduce a new and untried scheme. On the con-
trary, I regard it a strong recommendation of this measure that
it is substantially the same as that by which Great Britain re-
sumed specie payments, after a suspension of nearly a quarter
of a century.

The situation of England at that time was strikingly similar to
our present situation. She had just emerged from a great war,
in which her resources had been taxed to the utmost. Business
had been expanded, and high prices prevailed. Paper money
had been issued in unusual volume, was virtually a legal tender,
and had depreciated to the extent of twenty-five per cent.
Every financial evil from which we now suffer prevailed there,
and was aggravated by having been longer in operation. Plans
and theories without end were proposed to meet the many
difficulties of the case. For ten years the Bank of England and
the majority in Parliament vehemently denied that paper money
had depreciated, notwithstanding the unanswerable report of
the Bullion Committee of 1810, and the undeniable fact that it
tocbk twenty-five per cent more of notes than of coin to buy an
oumce of gold. Many insisted that paper was a better standard

THE CURRENCY. 319

of value than coin. Some denounced the attempt to return to
specie as unwise ; others as impossible. William Cobbett, the
famous pamphleteer, announced that he would give himself up
to be broiled on a gridiron whenever the Bank should resume
cash payments; and for many years kept the picture of a grid-
iron at the head of his Political Register, to remind his readers
of his prophecy. Every phase of the question was discussed
by the best minds of the kingdom, in and out of Parliament, for
more than ten years; and in May, 18 19, under the lead of Sir
Robert Peel, a law was passed fixing the time and mode of
resumption.

It provided that on the ist of February, 1820, the Bank should
give, in exchange for its notes, gold bullion, in quantities not
less than sixty ounces, at the rate of 8ij. per ounce; that from
the 1st of October, 1820, the rate should be 79J. 6d,; from the
1st of May, 1822, 79^. \o\d,; and on the 1st of May, 1823, the
Bank should redeem all its notes in coin, whatever the amount
presented. The passage of the act gave once more a fixed and
certain value to money; and business so soon adjusted itself to
the measure in anticipation that specie payments were fully
resumed on the ist of May, 1821, two years before the time
fixed by the law. Forty-seven years have elapse^ since then,
and the verdict of history has approved the wisdofii of the act,
notwithstanding the clamor and outcry which at first assailed it.
So plainly does this lesson apply to us that, in the preface to
one of the best histories of England recently published, the
author, who is an earnest friend of the United States, says: —

" It seems to me that no thoughtful citizen of any nation can read the
story of the years before and after Peel's bill of 18 19, extending over the
crash of 1825-26, without the strongest desire that such risks and ca-
lamities may b^ avoided in his own country, at any sacrifice. There are
several countri 5 under the doom of retribution for the license of an
inconvertible paper currency ; and of these the United States are unhap-
pily one. This passage of F^nglish history may possibly help to check
the levity with which the inevitable * crash ' is spoken of by some who little
dream what the horrors and griefs of such a convulsion are. It may do
more, if it should convince any considerable number of observers that the
affairs of the economic world are as truly and certainly under the control
of natural laws as the world of matter without, and that of mind within." ^

This testimony of a friend is worthy our profoundest consid-
eration.

1 Harriet Martineau : History of the Peace, (Boston, 1S64,) Vol. I. p. 8.

330 THE CURRENCY.

I will malce no apology for the length to which I have ex-
tended these remarks. The importance of the subject demanded
it. The decision we shall reach on this question will settle or
unsettle the foundations of public credit, of the public faith, and
of individual and national prosperity. The time and manner of
paying the bonds, the refunding the national debt, the contin-
uance or abolition of the national banks, and many other prop-
ositions, depend for their wisdom or unwisdom on the settlement
of this question. I know we are told that resumption of specie
payments will increase the value of the public debt, and thus
add to the burden of taxation ; and we are told, with special
emphasis, that the people will not tolerate any increase of their
burdens, but that they demand plenty of money and a return of
high prices. But, sir, I have learned to think better of the
American people than to believe that they are not willing to
know the worst and to provide for it. I remember that, after
the first defeat at Bull Run, many officers of the government
thought it not safe to let the people know, at once, the full ex-
tent of the disaster ; but that the news should be broken gently,
that the nation might be better able to bear it. Long before
the close of the war, it was found that Cabinet and Congress
and all the officers of the United States needed for themselves
to draw hope and courage from the great heart of the people.
It was only necessary for the nation to know the extent of the
danger, the depth of the need, and its courage, faith, and en-
durance were always equal to the necessity. It is now, as ever,
our highest duty to deal honestly and frankly with the people
who sent us here, in reference to their financial and industrial
affairs ; to assure them that the path of safety is a narrow and
rugged one; that by economy and prudence, by much patience
and some suffering, they must come down, by slow and careful
steps, from the uncertain and dangerous height to which the
war carried them, or they will fall at last in financial ruin more
sudden and calamitous than any yet recorded in the history of
mankind. Let it be remembered, also, that the heaviest of the
pressure has already been felt; the climax of suffering is
already past. The spring has opened with better prospects,
and indications are not wanting that the end of stagnation and
depression is near. The hitherto unknown extent of our re-
sources, the great recuperative energies of our industry, and the
generous loyalty of the people, have brought the nation safely

THE CURRENCY. 321

thus far through the dangers and difficulties of the rebellion.
Patience and steady firmness maintained here and among the
people a little longer will overcome the obstacles that yet lie
before us. /

For my own part, my course is taken. In view of all the
facts of our situation ; of all the terrible experiences of the past,
both at home and abroad ; and of the united testimony of the
wisest and bravest statesmen who have lived and labored during
the last century, it is my firm conviction that any considerable
increase of the volume of our inconvertible paper money will
shatter public credit, will paralyze industry and oppress the
poor ; and that the gradual restoration of our ancient standard
of value will lead us, by the safest and surest path, to national
prosperity and the steady pursuits of peace.

VOL. I. 21

STREWING FLOWERS ON THE GRAVES

OF UNION SOLDIERS.

ORATION DELIVERED AT ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA,

May 30, 1868.

** He has not died young who has lived long enough to die for his country.** — SchilUr,

MR. PRESIDENT, — I am oppressed with a sense of the
impropriety of uttering words on this occasion. If
silence is ever golden, it must be here beside the graves of
fifteen thousand men, whose lives were more significant than
speech, and whose death was a poem, the music of which can
never be sung. With words we make promises, plight faith,
praise virtue. Promises may not be kept; plighted faith may
be broken; and vaunted virtue be only the cunning mask of
vice. We do not know one promise these men made, one
pledge they gave, one word they spoke ; but we do know they
summed up and perfected, by one supreme act, the highest vir-
tues of men and citizens. For love of country, they accepted
death, and thus resolved all doubts, and made immortal their
patriotism and their virtue. For the noblest man that lives,
there still remains a conflict. He must still withstand the as-
saults of time and fortune, — must still be assailed with temp-
tations, before which lofty natures have fallen ; but with these,
the conflict ended, the victory was won, when death stamped
on them the great seal of heroic character, and closed a record
which years can never blot.

I know of nothing more appropriate on this occasion than to
inquire what brought these men here. What high motive led
them to condense life into an hour, and to crown that hour by
joyfully welcoming death? Let us consider.

Eight years ago this was the most unwarlike nation of the
earth. For nearly fifty years no spot in any of these States

FLOWERS ON SOLDIERS' GRAVES. 323

• had been the scene of battle. Thirty millions of people had
an army of less than ten thousand men. The faith of our peo-
ple in the stability and permanence of their institutions was
like their faith in the eternal course of nature. Peace, liberty,
and personal security were blessings as common and universal
as sunshine and showers and fruitful seasons ; and all sprang
from a single source, — the old American principle that all owe
due submission and obedience to the lawfully expressed will
of the majority. This is not one of the doctrines of our politi-
cal system, — it is the system itself It is our political firma-
ment, in which all other truths are set, as stars in heaven. It
is the encasing air, the breath of the nation's life. Against
this principle the whole weight of the rebellion was thrown.
Its overthrow would have brought such ruin as might follow in
the physical universe if the power of gravitation were destroyed,
and,

" Nature's concord broke,
Among the constellations war were sprung,
And planets, rushing from aspect malign
Of fiercest opposition, in mid-sky
Should combat, and their jarring spheres confound."

The nation was summoned to arms by every high motive
which can inspire men. Two centuries of freedom had made
its people unfit for despotism. They must save their govern-
ment, or miserably perish.

As a flash of lightning in a midnight tempest reveals the
abysmal horrors of the sea, so did the flash of the first gun dis-
close the awful abyss into which rebellion was ready to plunge
us. In a moment the fire was lighted in twenty million hearts.
In a moment wc were the most warlike nation on the earth.
In a moment wc were not merely a people with an army, —
we were a people in arms. The nation was in column, — not
all at the front, but all in the array.

I love to believe that no heroic sacrifice is ever lost; that
the characters of men are moulded and inspired by what their
fathers have done; that treasured up in American souls are all
the unconscious influences of the great deeds of the Anglo-
Saxon race, from Agincourt to Bunker Hill. It was such an
influence that led a young Greek, two thousand years ago, when
musing on the battle of Marathon, to exclaim, " The trophies of
Miltiades will not let me sleep ! " Could these men be silent in
1861, — these, whose ancestors had felt the inspiration of battle

324 FLOWERS ON SOLDIERS' GRAVES.

on every field where civilization had fought in the last thousand
years? Read their answer in this green turf. Each for him-
self gathered up the cherished purposes of life, — its aims and
ambitions, its dearest affections, — and flung all, with life itself,
into the scale of battle.

We began the war for the Union alone ; but we had not gone
far into its darkness before a new element was added to the con-
flict, which filled the army and the nation with cheerful but
intense religious enthusiasm. In lessons that could not be
misunderstood, the nation was taught that God had linked to
our own the destiny of an enslaved race, — that their liberty and
our Union were indeed " one and inseparable." It was this
that made the soul of John Brown the marching companion
of our soldiers, and made them sing as they went down to
battle, —

" Ai the beauty of the lilies Christ was born, across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me ;
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on."

With such inspirations, failure was impossible. The struggle
consecrated, in some degree, every man who bore a worthy
part. I can never forget an incident illustrative of this thought,
which it was my fortune to witness, near sunset of the second
day at Chickamauga, when the beleaguered but unbroken left
wing of our army had again and again repelled the assaults of
more than double their numbers, and when each soldier felt that
to his individual hands were committed the life of the army and
the honor of his country. It was just after a division had fired
its last cartridge, and had repelled a charge at the point of the
bayonet, that the great-hearted commander took the hand of
an humble soldier and thanked him for his steadfast courage.
The soldier stood silent for a moment, and then said, with
deep emotion : " George H. Thomas has taken this hand in
his. I '11 knock down any mean man that offers to take it
hereafter." This rough sentence was full of meaning. He felt
that something had happened to his hand which consecrated it.
Could a hand bear our banner in battle, and not be forever con-
secrated to honor and virtue? But doubly consecrated were
these who received into their own hearts the fatal shafts aimed
at the life of their country. Fortunate men ! your country lives
because you died ! Your fame is placed where the breath of

FLOWERS ON SOLDIERS' GRAVES. 325

calumny can never reach it ; where the mistakes of a weary life
can never dim its brightness ! Coming generations will rise up
to call you blessed !

And now, consider this silent assembly of the dead. What
does it represent? Nay, rather, what does it not represent? It
is an epitome of the war. Here are sheaves reaped, in the har-
vest of death, from every battlefield of Virginia. If each grave
had a voice to tell us what its silent tenant last saw and heard
on earth, we might stand, with uncovered heads, and hear the
whole story of the war. We should hear that one perished
when the first great drops of the crimson shower began to fall,
when the darkness of that first disaster at Manassas fell like an
eclipse on the nation ; that another died of disease while wearily
waiting for winter to end ; that this one fell on the field, in sight
of the spires of Richmond, little dreaming that the flag must be
carried through three more years of blood before it should be
planted in that citadel of treason ; and that one fell when the
tide of war had swept us back till the roar of rebel guns shook
the dome of yonder Capitol, and re-echoed in the chambers
of the Executive mansion. We should hear mingled voices
from the Rappahannock, the Rapidan, the Chickahominy, and
the James, solemn voices from the Wilderness, and triumphant
shouts from the Shenandoah, from Petersburg, and the Five
Forks, mingled with the wild acclaim of victory and the sweet
chorus of returning peace. The voices of these dead will for-
ever fill the land like holy benedictions.

What other spot so fitting for their last resting-place as this,
under the shadow of the Capitol saved by their valor? Here,
where the grim edge of battle joined, — here, where all the hope
and fear and agony of their country centred, — here let them rest,
asleep on the nation's heart, entombed in the nation's love !

The view from this spot bears some resemblance to that which
greets the eye at Rome. In sight of the Capitoline Hill, up and
across the Tiber, and overlooking the city, is a hill, not rugged
nor lofty, but known as the Vatican Mount. At the beginning
of the Christian era an imperial circus stood on its summit.
There gladiator slaves died for the sport of Rome, and wild
beasts fought with wilder men. There a Galilean fisherman
gave up his life a sacrifice for his faith. No human life was
ever so nobly avenged. On that spot was reared the proudest
Christian temple ever built by human hands. For its adorn-

326 FLOWERS ON SOLDIERS* GRAVES,

ment the rich offerings of every clime and kingdom have been
contributed. And now, after eighteen centuries, the hearts of
two hundred million people turn towards it with reverence
when they worship God. As the traveller descends the Apen-
nines, he sees the dome of St. Peter's rising above the desolate
Campagna and the dead city, long before the seven hills and
the ruined palaces appear to his view. The fame of the dead
fisherman has outlived the glory of the Eternal City. A noble
life, crowned with heroic death, rises above and outlives the
pride and pomp and glory of the mightiest empire of the
earth.

Seen from the western slope of our Capitol, in direction, dis-
tance, and appearance, this spot is not unlike the\iatican Mount,
though the river that flows at our feet is larger than a hundred
Tibers. Seven years ago this was the home of one who lifted
his sword against the life of his country, and who became the
great Imperator of the rebellion. The soil beneath our feet was
watered by the tears of slaves, in whose hearts the sight of yon-
der proud Capitol awakened no pride, and inspired no hope.
The face of the goddess that crowns it was turned towards the
sea, and not towards them. But, thanks be to God, this arena
of rebellion and slavery is a scene of violence and crime no
longer ! This will be forever the sacred mountain of our capital.
Here is our temple: its pavement is the sepulchre of heroic
hearts; its dome, the bending heaven; its altar candles, the
watching stars.

Hither our children's children shall come to pay their tribute
of grateful homage. For this are we met to-day. By the happy
suggestion of a great society, assemblies like this are gathering
at this hour in every State in the Union. Thousands of sol-
diers are to-day turning aside in the march of life to visit the
silent encampments of dead comrades who once fought by their
side. From many thousand homes, whose light was put out
when a soldier fell, there go forth to-day to join these solemn
processions loving kindred and friends, from whose heart the
shadow of grief will never be lifted till the light of the eternal
world dawns upon them. And here are children, little chil-
dren, to whom the war left no father but the Father above. By
the most sacred right, theirs is the chief place to-day. They
come with garlands to crown their victor fathers. I will delay
the coronation no longer.

1

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 15, 1868.

Propositions to tax the bonds of the United States were common in
the period reaching from the close of the war to the resumption of specie
payments (1865 ^0 1879). Sometimes they sprang from the strong re-
pudiation tendencies so rife in that period, and sometimes from an imper-
fect understanding of the legal and economical elements involved in the
question. Several such schemes, diflering in details but agreeing in the
end to be reached, were brought forward in the House of Representa-
tives in the second session of the Fortieth Congress. As the number of
these schemes, and the hold that they took of the House and the coun-
try, led to the following speech, it will be well to mention several of them.

February 14, 1868, Mr. John A. Logan, of Illihois, introduced a bill
providing that from and after the ist of June, 1868, all United States
bonds should pay an internal tax of two per cent per annum. As there
was no apparent prospect of reaching this bill that session, Mr. F. A.
Pike, of Maine, June 25, offered in Committee of the Whole the
amendment to the Internal Tax Bill which is quoted in the following
speech, and which was niled out of order. The Holman amendment,
offered the next day, making the rate of tax sixteen and two thirds per
cent, was also ruled out Mr. B. F. Butler, of Massachusetts, now moved
to strike out certain words from one of the sections of the Tax Bill, the
effect of which would be to make the bonds held by the national banks
taxable at the rate of one half of one per cent per annum. This motion
was the occasion upon which Mr. Pike made the remarks commented
upon by Mr. Garfield in the following speech. June 29th, Mr. Amasa
Cobb, of Wisconsin, offered this resolution : " That the Committee of
Ways and Means be, and they are hereby, instructed to report without
tnmecessary delay a bill levying a tax of at least ten per cent on the
interest of the bonds of the United States, to be assessed and collected
annually by the Secretary of the Treasury, and such of his subordinates
as may be charged with the duty of paying the interest on the bonded

328 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

Indebtedness of the United States." After motions to lay thui resolu-
tion on the table, and to refer it to the Committee of Ways and Means,
had been voted down, it was adopted. July 2d, a bill was reported in
harmony with this resolution, the committee taking pains to say in their
report (quoted by Mr. Garfield below), that they acted only in obedi-
ence to positive orders, and that, as members of die House, they should
resist the passage of die biU that they thus reported. No action was
had upon this biQ. July 14th, the House bemg in Committee of the
Whole upon the state of the Union, Mr. Butler made a lengthy speech
in advocacy of the principle involved Mr. Garfield replied both to him
and to Mr. Pike, also in committee, the day following.

" We denounce all forms of repudiation as a national crime ; and the national honor re-
quires the payment of the public inddytedness, in iht uttermost good faitky to all creditors at
home and abroad, fut only according to the letter, htt the spirit, of the lawn under wkick it
was contracted:* ^ReftMican Platform (lifA).

" We agreed to pay the interest specified in the bonds, and a rdate of interest is, so £ar, a
repudiation of the contract If we agreed to pay six per cent, let us pay it Let us not pay
five, and tdl the creditors we have taken the other one per cent and put it into the national
treasury. That b not keeping Hat public faith. We may as well deduct from the principal
as from the interest" — Speech of Hon, F, A, Pike in the House of Representatives, Decem-
ber 17, 1867.

MR. CHAIRMAN, — I sympathize with every gentleman
who has honored the speakers of the evening by sitting
in this hall, with the mercury at ninety-three degrees, to listen
to a financial debate. But the subject discussed last evening
by the gentleman from Massachusetts ^ is of such transcendent
importance, and the views he submitted to the House seem to
me of so very singular a character in some of their aspects, that
I feel justified in asking your attention to what I shall say in
answer.

I ought to say that I had already prepared a brief in answer
to a speech, not delivered, but printed by the gentleman from
Maine,^ on this same subject, not many days ago. And as the
gentleman from Massachusetts, in his speech last evening, in-
dorsed almost every position taken by the gentleman from
Maine, especially his statements in regard to the history of
English taxation as a precedent for the proposed measure,
I can do no better than to consider, first, the points made by
the gentleman from Maine, and then notice any special points
made in addition by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

1 Mr. Butler. s Mr. Pike.

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 329

I desire in the outset to disclaim any purpose or wish to
exempt from its full and proper share of taxation any species
of property in the United States, and least of all that kind of
property which is not actively employed in the production of
national wealth. I am not the defender of any particular class
of property, or property-holders. I seek, rather, to defend the
truth of history as it bears on this subject, and to defend our
financial system from a most dangerous innovation, ruinous alike
to the revenue and to the public credit

Let us examine, for a moment, the history of the issue raised
by these gentlemen, in order to ascertain precisely what it is.

The feeling has been, and still is, very general throughout
the country, that the holders of our national bonds do not bear
an equal share of the burdens of taxation, and many plans have
been proposed to readjust our financial machinery so as to levy
on that class of the community a heavier tax than they now
pay. Nothing is more gratifying to a representative than to be
able to meet and satisfy a popular demand. But how to meet
this one lawfully, honestly, and wisely, has been, and still is, a
matter of great difficulty. The Democratic party once pro-
posed that the States should tax the bonds, as they tax real and
personal property. But the law creating the bonds specially
declares them exempt from all State and municipal taxation,
and even if the law were silent on the subject, the Constitution
of the United States interposes to prevent it. In a long line of
judicial decisions, extending over nearly half a century, it has
been again and again declared, by the Supreme Court, that
such taxation is forbidden by the Constitution.

The payment of the bonds in depreciated paper currency
has been another favorite plan for reaching the same result;
but that dishonest scheme has been severely if not fatally dam-
aged by the noble declarations of the Chicago Convention, and
by the refusal of the late Democratic Convention to nominate
the most prominent supporter of the scheme itself.*

Many other schemes, which I need not stop to enumerate,
have been offered during the present session, looking to the
same ultimate result, such as taxing the principal of the public
debt by Congress, and other similar plans. I will only state
particularly those propositions recently made that have resulted
in the passage of a resolution by this House, which I believe

1 Mr. George H. Pendleton, of Ohio.

330 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

the House will not sanction when it has maturely reviewed and
considered the subject.

On the 25th of June, while the bank section of the internal
revenue tax bill was before the House, the gentleman from
Maine offered an amendment in these words : " That upon all
interest arising from bonds of the United States there shall be
levied, collected, and paid a duty of ten per cent on the amount
of such interest, and the Treasurer of the United States, and
such subordinate officers as shall be charged with the payment
of interest, shall assess and collect the duty hereby levied." It
was ruled out of order, as not germane to the bill then pend-
ing. The financial leader of the Democratic party on this floor ^
came to his support the next day, by offering a proposition
differing from the above only in this, — that it fixed the rate
of taxation at sixteen and two thirds per cent. This was also
ruled out of order. Still later, the gentleman from Massachu-
setts offered an amendment to the bank section of the tax bill
which was in order, and under the cover of which the three gen-
tlemen discussed their several projects. Their labor was not
lost, though another has reaped whatever of glory may be sup-
posed to result from the enterprise. The substance of their
schemes was embodied in a resolution of peremptory instruc-
tions to the Committee of Ways and Means to bring in a bill
levying a direct tax of ten per cent on the interest of the pub-
lic debt, and requiring the Secretary of the Treasury and his
subordinates to withhold that amount when the coupons were
presented for payment. This resolution was introduced into the
House on the 29th of June by the gentleman from Wisconsin,^
and was passed under the previous question, without a word of
debate being permitted. Every Democrat present save one
voted for it.

Though the desire has been very general, I may perhaps
say almost universal, among the members of this Congress, to
lay a heavier burden of taxation on the holders of bonds, yet
the House had been restrained from such measures as the
Cobb resolution by a sentiment deeply ingrained in the Anglo-
Saxon character, that it is honest to pay what we fairly and
lawfully promise, and dishonest to refuse. But the gentleman
from Maine undertook to remove that difficulty by assuring
the House that Great Britain has long been doing precisely

1 Mr. Holman. a Mr. Cobb.

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 331

the thing he recommended. I have no doubt that many mem-
bers, relying on the accuracy of the gentleman's statements,
were reheved from ethical difficulties which would otherwise
have prevented their voting for the resolution. The speech,
though not delivered in full, was printed in the Globe, from
manuscript elaborately prepared, and was directed to the de-
fence of his proposed amendment, which I have already quoted.
He offers what he calls three " reasons " in support of his prop-
osition. His second and third are purely negative arguments, if
arguments at all, and amount substantially to this : that as the
Constitution docs noty and Congress cannot^ confer upon the
States the power to tax the bonds of the United States, and as
he and those who agree with him have hitherto been defeated
in their attempts to levy a direct tax of one per cent on the
capital of the public debt, there is no other method of reaching
their object except the one now proposed ; namely, to levy a
direct tax on the interest of the public debt, by declaring that
the government will hereafter pay but ninety per cent of the
interest it has promised to pay.

The first and only positive one of his three ** reasons " is the
English precedent. This statement is most surprising. Doubt-
less many members were gratified to hear it ; but I know of but
one who indorsed it as true. The gentleman from Massachu-
setts, a few days after, in speaking of the Cobb resolution, said,
*'The tax which the resolution proposes is the same as the
English government imposes on its bonds."

That a gentleman in the heat of debate, or without reflection,
should make such a statement, would not be remarkable. But
the gentleman from Maine undertook to speak by authority,
giving quotations from the English statutes, and citations from
financial history. He arranged his summary of the subject
under five separate heads, and made his assertion as if with the
full assurance of knowledge. After a careful examination, I
am compelled to say that I have never seen so many miscon-
ceptions and perversions of so important a subject crowded into
the same space. That I may do the gentleman no injustice, I
quote his words : —

" The income statute of 5 Victoria is very elaborate, occupying a hun-
dred and twenty pages, with minute details of different subjects of taxa-
tion and modes of collection.

"Schedule B provides that upon incomes from landed estates — and

332 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

from this source some of the largest English incomes are derived — there
shall be levied two and a half pence upon eveiy twenty shillings of value.

''Schedule C is as follows: 'Upon all profits arising from annuities,
dividends, and shares of annuities payable to any person, body politic or
corporate, company or society, whether corporate or not corporate, out
of any public revenue, there shall be charged yearly for every twenty
shillings of the amount thereof the sum of seven pence, without deduc-
tion.*

The effect of these English statutes is, —

I. A larger tax is assessed upon the holders of property in the pub-
lic debt than upon the holders of landed estates.

" 2. Every lK>lder of the debt, whether resident in Great Britain or not,
is assessed.

"3. As a portion of the public debt of England is in terminable annu-
ities, to that extent the principal of the debt is taxed, and diat whether
the holder resides in Great Britain or abroad. Leon Levi, one of the
most eminent of English writers on finance, mentions this specialty of
British taxation.

" 4. As the payment of the interest of the debt is intrusted to the
Banks of England and Ireland, the East India and the South Sea Com-
panies, and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the Debt, the effect
of putting this tax into their hands to assess and collect is nearly the
same as it would be in our case to deduct it from the coupons. I have,
in my amendment, followed the idea of the British statute, and charged
the Treasurer with these duties.

" 5. Schedule C provides for payment of tax 'without deduction.' In
case of other property, it is provided by the statute that income up to a
certain amount is not taxed. In our case, all incomes under ^1,000 are
not taxed. The English limit is somewhat less.

"It is evident that my proposition is clearly within the English ex-
ample." ^

The gentleman owes it to the House and to the country to
explain why he drew the authority for his statements from the
statute of 5 and 6 Victoria, a statute passed in 1842, and, by its
terms, to continue in force but three years ; and which, with the
exception of some of the administrative sections, was repealed
fifteen years ago. The very passage which the gentleman
quotes in reference to the taxation of interest on the public
debt, is not now the law of England, and has not been for
fifteen years.

Mr. Pike. If the gentleman will allow me, Sir Robert Peel's law of
1842 took this schedule from Pitt's law of 1803. Gladstone subse-

> Congressional Globe, June 26^ 1868, pp. 3531 » 3532.

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 333

qpeo&f adopted the same schedule. He amended the income law, but
it was in particulais I did not comment upon. Consequently, the state-
ments I quoted from Peel's law, and which were also in Gladstone's law,
were propeily quoted, because they are to-day the income law of Great
Britain. The £u:t is, the law of 1842 is the income law that is usually
quoted, unless as to the few particulars in which it was changed by
Ghdstme's law.

I will not linger on this point, but only repeat what I have
already said, that the very section which the gentleman quoted
was repealed fifteen years ago, and, except some of the admin-
istrative sections, Gladstone's law of 1853 has been the basis
of all subsequent legislation on the subject But against the
gottleman's statements I bring charges far more serious than
that of quoting a dead law. He has utterly misrepresented
the law which he attempts to quote.

I. To prove his assertion that a larger tax is assessed on
holders of property in the public debt than on holders of landed
estates, he asserts that Schedule B taxes income on landed es-
tates only two and one half pence in the pound ; while Schedule
C taxes interest on the public debt seven pence in the pound.
On the very page of the statute from which he quoted stood,
in plain print, the following: " Schedule A. For all lands, tene-
ments, and hereditaments or heritages in Great Britain, there
shall be charged yearly, in respect of the property thereof,
for every twenty shillings of the annual value thereof, the sum
of seven pence."

He utterly misrepresented Schedule B, which, if quoted,
would be fatal to his case, and quoted Schedule C in full, thus
giving the appearance of accuracy to his statement. Schedule
B levies a tax not on the ownership, but on the occupation of
land, — on the annual profits of the tenant farmer over and
above the rent he pays. There are five schedules in the Eng-
lish income tax, and the profits arising under all are taxed, and
have always been taxed, at the same rate, except those under
Schedule B, which are placed at a less rate as a favor to labor-
ing men, the renters and farmers of land.

Mr, Butler. How would it help the poor man who rented land to
tax the rent that went into the owner's pocket?

The farmers, the laboring men, were taxed only half as much
on the profits of their labor as the owners of the land were taxed

334 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

on their profits from rent, and thus the poor man was helped.
A difference was made between rents in Scotland and in Eng-
land, because of the difference in the mode of charging. In
one of the countries the landlords had to pay the tax, and in
the other the tenant. For that reason a difference was made
between the Scottish and English farmers. But the gentleman
from Maine quotes the Scottish tax under Schedule B, omitting
the English, which is one penny in the pound higher.

Mr. Pike. If the gentleman will allow me a moment The English
law always has been, not an income tax alone, but a property and in-
come tax. This is the style of it, — " Property and income." I was
discussing the income part. That part contained four schedules, begin-
ning with Schedule B. The first schedule that the gentleman speaks of
now is the property schedule, and is a tax on the value of the land,
somewhat similar to our real estate tax of 1 86 1. But by our constitution
we can have no such property tax as the English, because with us it must
be levied in proportion to the population. I spoke also of the amount of
these income taxes. Let me say that the largest income retumed under
any one single item under Peel's law was derived ftom this veiy Sched-
ule B. My statement was not about owners of land, but simply of hold-
ers of land. The holders of land hold it by long leases, and are one class
of people, and the owners of the land, who are taxed by rack-rent, are
another class, and on them the real estate tax is charged. That was the
reason why I mentioned Schedule B, and not Schedule A.

My friend, I fear, has not helped his case by what he has just
said. In the first place, he is mistaken in supposing that Sched-
ule A does not impose an income tax, but a tax on property.
It is no property tax. I will read from the language of the stat-
ute : ** Schedule A. For all lands, tenements, etc., there shall
be charged yearly, in respect of the property thereof, for every
twenty shillings of annual value thereof, the sum of seven
pence." The tax is levied on the annual value, the rental value,
the annual income arising from the realty. It is an income tax
throughout ; a tax on income, whether arising from property or
business, capital or labor. In the early years of the tax there
were no subdivisiohs at all, and these schedules were intro-
duced to enable the assessors to ascertain more certainly the
amount of incomes in the kingdom.

Mr. Pike. I would ask the gentleman whether that Schedule A, so
far as it is a land tax, is not a tax by rack-rent?

Not at all.

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 335

Mr. Pike. I say that the English authorities everywhere specify it
as a tax by rack-rent

The gentleman is quite mistaken. If an owner rents his land,
his income from it is estimated on the rental value ; but if he
fanns his own land, he is taxed under Schedule A, according to
an assessment made on its annual value, and he is also taxed
under Schedule B on the profit he makes from farming it
himself. It is the income in both cases which bears the tax.
Under Schedule A, income from real estate is taxed. Under
Schedule B, income from farm labor.

Mr. Pke. Will the gentleman allow me ? I know he desires to state
the case ^urly. He speaks of Schedule A as if it was one item. Sched-
ule B is one item, but Schedule A contains fifty-four different items.
Among those items are mortgages on houses, lands, etc., railways,
canals, coalmines, fisheries, iron- works, and other items of that sort,
making fifty-four different items that go to make up the aggregate of
Schedule A.

That makes the case all thg stronger, for the gentleman him-
self exhibits the fact that fifty-four items are items of landed
property, — real estate ; and the tax is levied, as I have shown,
not on the property, but on the annual income from it.

Mr. Pike. Schedule B, under Peel's act, yielded ;^46, 769,000, and
the highest item in Schedule A was ;^45, 750,000. I quote from Se-
nior's Income Tax Law.

The gentleman's figures cannot possibly be correct, for I
have before me the full official records of the assessment and
product of the income tax from 1798 down to 1863. I will
quote from them in a moment.

The gentleman refers to Schedule B as the source of some of
the largest English incomes." In this he is greatly mistaken.
Nearly two thirds of all who are assessed under it are exempted
by reason of their small incomes. Levi, in his work on Tax-
ation, says : " Of nearly seven hundred thousand persons
assessed under this schedule [B], only about two hundred
and eighty thousand are charged." ^ This shows clearly that
the incomes under Schedule B arc those of small farmers, and
not the ** largest English incomes," as the gentleman asserts.

Mr. Pike. I did not say the largest individual incomes, but the largest
income in the gross.

^ On Taxation, (London, i860,) p. 151.

336 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

The gentleman's statement is incorrect in either case, whether
applied to individual incomes or to the total amount of incomes
arising under this schedule.

In Sir Morton Feto's work on Taxation ^ the whole amount
assessed under the five schedules of the income tax laws in
1861 is stated in tabular form. The amount under Schedule A
is ;f 1 3 1,680^7; under Schedule B, ;f 3 3, 128,296. From a still
later English work ' I find that the total amount of British in-
comes, exclusive of Ireland, on which taxes were assessed, under
the different schedules, in 1862-63, were as follows: —

A. Ownership of land ;£x3<^9o6i,575

B. Occupation of land 16,052,671

C. Dividends • 29,528,215

D. Trades and professions 93>322,864

E. Salaries, pensions, etc. X9»463,035

;£• 284,428,360

From this it will be seen that the incomes under Schedule B
amount to but one eighth as much as those under Schedule A,
where the great incomes are found, and that Schedule B is the
smallest of the five.

2. The gentleman asserts that, though under all the other
schedules incomes below a certain amount are wholly exempt
from taxation, yet on incomes arising under Schedule C the tax
must be paid without deduction. In answer to this statement,
I affirm that such is not now and never was the law of England.
The very act to which the gentleman appeals provided that
incomes less than one hundred and fifty pounds should be
wholly exempt from the tax ; and if any part of it had been
paid, it should be refunded. Here is the passage from his own
authority, Statute 5 and 6 Victoria, c. 35.

"Sec. 163. That any person charged or chargeable to the duties
granted by this act, either by assessment, or by way of deduction fi-om
any rent, annuity, interest, or other annual payment to which he may be
entitled, who shall prove before the Commissioners for General Purposes,
in the manner hereinafter mentioned, that the aggregate annual amount
of his income, estimated according to the several rules and directions of
this act, is less than one hundred and fifty pounds, shall be exempted
from the said duties, and shall be entitled to be repaid the amount of all

1 Taxation; an Inquiry into our Financial Policy, (London, 1863,) p. 76.
■ Fiscal Legislation, by John Noble, (London, 1867,) P* ^S^.

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 337

deductions or payments on account thereof in the manner hereinafter
directed/* etc.

Under that law, when holders of the public funds received
their interest, the Bank, as the fiscal agent of the government,
withheld the amount of the income tax without deduction ; but,
on making proof to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue
that his income, from all sources, was less than one hundred and
fifty pounds, the fundholder was paid the full amount which
had been withheld by the Bank. The gentleman has evidently
confounded " deduction " with " exemption," for he speaks as
though no exemption whatever was made under Schedule C.
In addition to the exemption of all incomes under one hundred
and fifty pounds, there were wholly exempted from taxation un-
der that schedule the profits accruing to six classes : i . Friendly
societies; 2. Savings banks; 3. Charitable institutions; 4. Com-
missioners of the Public Debt; 5. The Queen; 6. Ministers
from foreign countries.^ The words ** without deduction '*
prohibited only the Bank, not the Commissioners of Revenue,
from making the deduction. In the statute of 16 and 17 Victo-
ria (1853) these words are omitted, because that law provided
that the Commissioners might furnish the Bank with a list of
fundholders whose incomes were entitled to exemption, and
from such the Bank should withhold no part of the interest.

Mr. PncE. Pitt's law of 1803 levied a tax of five per cent. It was
subsequently raised, in 1806, to ten per cent, and it was collected in
exactly the way the gentleman says no tax ever was collected. That is,
it was collected at the Bank. And more than that, under Schedule C, it
was collected in full, and no exemption was allowed ; exactly as I have
stated. And under Schedule D all incomes from fifty up to one him-
dred and fifty pounds were exempted. But the exemptions were limited
to profits derived from "trades, professions, and offices." Thus the
incomes from the debt were collected in full, while the incomes from
other sources have exemptions to a certain extent. I quote now from
Senior's Income Tax I^w, page 80.

Now, the gentleman has done precisely what I suspected ; he
has utterly confounded the words " deduction " and " exemp-
tion," for I see that he uses them interchangeably. I admit the
law says " without deduction " ; but it does not say " without
exemption," and therein lies the difference between the gen-

^ See Stat 5 and 6 Victoria, c. 35, sec. 88.

VOL. I. 22

338 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

tleman and myself. In a subsequent section (sec. 88) of the
same statute, there are six exemptions under Schedule C, which
I have already quoted, and this proves beyond controversy
that the words " without deduction*' do not mean "without ex-
emption." From the very volume which the gentleman holds
in his hand, (Senior's Income Tax Law,) I can show him an in-
stance cited to illustrate the law in which part of a dividend on
public funds, withheld by the Bank, was repaid to the citizen
when he made proof that his income from all sources was less
than the amount exempted by law. I think I pointed the case
out to the gentleman a few days ago. From the beginning of
the English income tax down to the present day, every man has
been repaid, if he came under the exemption clause, for all
moneys taken or withheld by the Bank.

Mr. Pike. Now let me read what were the provisions of the English
law : " Up to this time exemption had been granted on incomes from
realized property under sixty pounds a year. This was now, with few
exceptions, repealed ; and entire exemption was limited to incomes
under fifty pounds a year in the whole; while a graduated scale was
imposed upon incomes between fifty pounds and one hundred and fifty
pounds a year, but limited to profits derived from trades, professions,
and offices. An official publication of the time explains the reasons for
this alteration, as well as some others effected about the same period."
The gentleman will see that I was entirely right, and he entirely wrong.

It is manifestly a commentary, not the law, that the gentle-
man reads. What is the date of the law to which the commen-
tator refers?

Mr. Pike. It is Pitt*s income law.

What year? There are several of Pitt's laws, extending from
1798 to 1 8 16. If the gentleman has found an income law
passed in the early years of that period, when the banks did not
collect any part of the tax, his citation is fatal to the position he
is attempting to establish.

Mr. Pike. This was the law for ten years.

The gentleman is mistaken. I cannot yield further now.

I proceed to notice another statement in the gentleman's
printed speech.

3. He asserts that the principal of the British debt is taxed, in
so far as it consists of terminable annuities ; and cites as proof
the eminent authority of Leon Levi. This statement is more

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 339

likely to mislead than any other in his speech, for it is likely to
convey the impression, by insinuation, that, while we refuse to
tax the interest on our debt, the British government tax both the
interest and principal of theirs. Now, I deny, in totOy that the
capital of the British debt as such is taxed, or ever was taxed.
Indeed, the gentleman does not assert, and I am sure he will not
assert, that it is taxed as capital ; but the whole drift of his state-
ment insinuates it. The only ground on which he bases his as-
sertion is that a terminable annuity is a debt, a part of the capital
of which is virtually refunded to the holder each year, in the
form of interest ; and as the government taxes the proceeds of
such annuities at the same rate as the proceeds of perpetual an-
nuities are taxed, it virtually amounts to a tax on capital.

Mr. Butler. Will the gentleman state again, if it will not be too
much trouble to him, what is a terminable annuity, as he understands it ?

It is a form of English indebtedness from which the holder
receives annually, for a limited period, a larger sum than he
would receive from a perpetual annuity, which brings him only
three per cent.

Mr. Butler. The same difference that there would be here between
a three per cent bond and a six per cent bond.

Not the same difference, for one terminates altogether in a
given time, while the other is perpetual. And the argument
which the gentleman attempts to make is this : that a part of
the capital is returned to the holder in the annual payment, and
therefore the capital is taxed. My reply is, that, strictly speak-
ing, there is no capital at all in a terminable annuity. It is all
income, and is taxed only as income. In support of this view
I refer to a report published in 1861 by Mr. Robert Lowe,
one of the ablest members of the House of Commons. That
the tax on terminable annuities is one of the inequalities in the
practical operation of the English law, no one will deny. For
twenty years English statesmanship has been baffled in the at-
tempt to remedy this defect* In 185 1 and 1852 a committee of
the House of Commons sat for many months, and printed a
thousand pages of evidence on the workings of the tax. An-
other committee, in 1861, after a similar examination, reported
a great mass of evidence. One of the chief objects of these in-
vestigations was to devise a plan by which this very inequality

340 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

might be obviated. But both commissions failed to agree upon
any plan, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer frankly con-
fessed that, with all the light thus thrown upon the subject, he
saw no practicable method of curing the defect. Levi, whom
the gentleman quotes, mentions the inequality of the tax when
applied to the interest of terminable annuities, not to approve,
but to denounce it; and he denounces it because, in effect, it
approaches so nearly a tax on capital. But in fact and in law
it is no more a tax on capital, than the tax which the States now
levy on the shares of our national banks is a tax on the United
States bonds, in which the capital of the banks is mainly invest-
ed. The principle involved in both cases is precisely the same,
and was clearly set forth by our Supreme Court in the case of
Van Allen v. The Assessors,^ where it is held that a tax on the
shares is not a tax on the capital of the bank ; that the shares,
though based on bonds which cannot be taxed by municipal
authority, are a species of property distinct from the bonds,
having many functions and uses which the bonds have not. So
with terminable annuities. Whatever elements may compose
them, it is only when they assume the form of income that the
tax applies to them. It is, therefore, not true, either in law or
in fact, that the English government taxes the principal of its
debt.

Before leaving this point, in order to show to what desper-
ate straits the gentlemen are reduced in their effort to find a
precedent for taxing the principal of our debt, I will state that
only a small portion of the British debt is in terminable annui-
ties. The commission of 1861 stated that the whole amount
did not exceed ;f 10,000,000, while the British debt was nearly
;f 790,000,000.

4. The gentleman asserts that every holder of the British
funds, whether citizen or foreigner, is taxed, and hence con-
cludes that we ought to tax the foreign holders of our bonds.
There is just enough truth in this statement to make it danger-
ous. From 1798 to 1842 every income-tax law of England con-
tained a clause specially exempting from taxation all income
from public funds in the hands of foreigners. The law, as re-
vived in 1842 by Sir Robert Peel, did not exempt foreigners from
the operation of the law. In the debate on the bill, Peel said
that all the tax which would be collected from foreign holders

1 3 Wallace, 583, 584.

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 341

would not amount to more than ten or twenty thousand pounds.
England has long been a lender, not a borrower, of money; she
has no foreign loan, and the taxation of income from the debt
in the hands of foreigners is hardly a practical question with
her. Among the many changes which have been made in the
law since 1842, I have not been able to ascertain with certainty
what the law now is; but I incline to the belief that foreign
holders are no longer taxed. The income tax was thoroughly
revised in 1853, and Mr. Gladstone, the author of the revised law
and then Chancellor of the Exchequer, while speaking on this
very subject at that time, said : —

" It has been a popular doctrine to tax the foreigner, but I think that
no person in this House would wish to tax the foreigner in this particu-
lar form. It has been a long-contested question with respect to income
tax in England, whether the foreigner is not entitled to exemption alto-
gether. The late Sir Robert Peel subjected him to equal taxation in
1842 ; but even that proposal was strongly resisted, and I think every
member of this House will agree that it would be very impolitic to lay
an exceptional tax of this kind upon the foreigner." ^

This shows that English statesmanship strongly condemns
the policy. For us, a debtor nation, to adopt it, would be the
extreme of folly. Though, as I have said, there are some
doubts as to what the English law now is, yet there is a citizen
of this city who has held English funds within the last year,
and who states that he was exempted from the tax on furnish-
ing evidence that he was not a British subject.

But whatever the British law may be at the present time in
regard to taxing foreigners, this will not be denied, — that when-
ever the foreigner has been taxed under the income law, he has
had the same benefits of exemptions and deductions as a British
subject. Even under Peel's law, the foreigner was exempt when
his income from British sources was less than one hundred and
fifty pounds. This English practice bears no analogy to the
scheme proposed by the gentleman from Maine. To quote it
as an argument is to confess the weakness of his position.

If the gentleman wishes to find precedents for taxing govern-
ment bonds held by foreigners, I commend him to the examples
of Austria and Italy, who have been compelled within the last
two months to adopt this policy, but offer as their apology that

1 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. CXXV. pp. I377» ^378.

342 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

they are on the verge of bankruptcy, and are compelled to
choose between this step and complete financial ruin. These
two kingdoms are now, for this act, ruined in credit and honor
by the verdict of all civilized nations. Moreover, I commend
to the gentleman his own speech, delivered in this House on
the 17th of December last, in which he strongly opposes the
taxation of foreign bondholders.

In answer, therefore, to the gentleman's assertions, I affirm, —

1st. That there is not now, and never has been, a law in Eng-
land, levying a tax on the principal of the public debt.

2d. That the interest on the British debt is not now, and
never was, taxed, except when it takes the form and becomes a
part of a taxable income. Whenever there has been no income
tax, there has been no tax on the interest of the debt. When-
ever there has been an income tax, the interest arising from the
debt has been taxed at the same rate, and only the same, as the
income from lands, hereditaments, trades, professions, salaries,
pensions, and every other source, except from the occupation
and farming of lands.

3d. That all the rules of exemption which apply to other
sources of income apply equally to income arising from the
funds. In short, that the interest of the debt is not taxed at
all as such, but only when it forms a part of an income amount-
ing to more than one hundred or one hundred and fifty pounds,
or whatever the amount exempted by law may be.

4th. And, finally, that the scheme of the gentlemen from
Maine, Massachusetts, and Indiana, which afterward, in sub-
stance, passed the House as the Cobb resolution, is not within
the English precedent, nor within any precedent approved by
civilized nations ; but, if it becomes a law, will be a direct, pal-
pable repudiation of $13,000,000 of the annual interest on our
national debt, for the payment of which the faith of the nation
has been pledged in the most solemn manner.

The gentleman from Massachusetts in his speech last evening
alleged that our bonds were bought at a great discount, and are
now at a premium, and therefore the bondholder could not
complain if he should be taxed higher than the holders of other
property. I desire to remind the gentleman, that the English
bonds were negotiated at a much greater discount than our own.
A late English writer has shown that all the debt incurred from
1793 to 1815 was negotiated at a loss of nearly forty-three per

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 343

cent, and that for every ;f lOO of money received from loans
during that period the debt was increased ;f 173. But* for one
illustrious fact, Great Britain would have fallen half a century
ago into the abyss of hopeless bankruptcy, of irretrievable finan-
cial ruin ; but for one fact, her greatness and glory would now
exist only in history. That fact is this: that while she has
borne, for a hundred years, a greater burden of debt and taxa-
tion than any other nation, she has kept her financial faith un-
tarnished. This fact has enabled her, within the last fifty years,
to reduce the total amount of her annual interest twenty-five
per cent, while the principal of her debt has been reduced less
than nine per cent. In 1817, her annual interest was almost
thirty-four millions sterling. In 1866, it was less than twenty-
six millions. She has been able to fund her debt again and
again at a decreased rate of interest, and the records of Thread-
needle Street show that the British three per cent consols have
been, during the last half-century, the standard stock of the
world. Though the British debt is nearly fifty per cent greater
than ours, yet her annual interest in 1867 was ten per cent less.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have said all I desire to say in regard
to the English precedent. Though the principles of political
morality cannot be changed by any precedent, yet I admit that
if the gentlemen had shown that the English tax law is framed
on the principle expressed in the Cobb resolution, it would be
a very formidable argument in defence of that measure. Their
positive statements that it was so had a marked effect on the
opinions of members of the House, and led them to assent to
a proposition which I do not believe they will indorse after a
full consideration. I rejoice, sir, that the Committee of Ways
and Means have responded to the order of the House in a man-
ner which discloses in full the character of the proposition which
these gentlemen desire to incorporate in the law. Omitting the
bill, this is the committee's report, as submitted, July 2d, by
Mr. Hooper.

" The Committee of Ways and Means, to whom was referred the reso-
lution of the House instructing them to report without unnecessary delay
a bill lev>'ing a tax of at least ten per cent on the interest of the bonds of
the United States, to be collected by the Secretary of the Treasury, and
such of his subordinates as maybe charged with the duty of paying the in-
terest on the bonded debt of the United States, have had the same under
consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report and bill.

344 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

"The Committee of Ways and Means are opposed to the proposition
embraced in this resolution, and report the bill only in obedience to the
positive order of the House.

" In the argument made in the House in favor of the resolution, the
English income-tax law was referred to and quoted. There is a law
corresponding to that law on the statute-books of this country, imposing a
tax on incomes of five per cent, while the English law is less than three
per cent. But your committee have been unable to find in the statute-
books of England, or any other civilized country, a law that could be
regarded in any way as a precedent for the bill the House have instruct-
ed the committee to report, which, if enacted, will be simply a law pro-
viding for the payment of a rate of interest on the government debt ten
per cent less than was agreed for, ten per cent less than is stated in the
bonds, and ten per cent less than was pledged to be paid by the solemn
enactment of Congress, when the money was required to carry on a war
which threatened the life of the nation.

" The evil effects resulting to a nation, whether her national credit is
guarded and protected, or whether by legislation of the character now
proposed the confidence of all other civilized nations is forfeited, may
not be felt or appreciated in time of peace j but the committee desire to
call attention to the consequences that would follow the passage of a bill
of the character now submitted, in case we should ever hereafter have
occasion to use our credit for the purpose of providing means either to
sustain ourselves at home or to defend ourselves in any collision with a
foreign power,

" The committee repeat, that in reporting the bill they act in obedi-
ence to the positive directions of the House, and contrary to their own
best judgment. They reserve to themselves their rights, as members of
the House, to oppose in every possible way the adoption of a measure
which they regard as hostile to the public interest and injurious to the
national character." ^

The bill which the committee reported fully embodied the
spirit of the resolution instructing them.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, in his speech last even-
ing, while criticising the report of the committee, charged them
with going out of their way to discuss the British law. Fie said
that the resolution sent to them was passed without debate, and
under the previous question ; and he asked, " What business had
they to talk about the English example and the results of it?
Nobody raised that question." I will tell him why the com-
mittee discussed the English law. When he and his Democratic

* Congressional Globe, July 2, 186S, p. 36S9.

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 345

friends were carrying through the measure for instructing the
committee, although the previous question was pending, he
made a speech consisting of one sentence, in which he declared
that this was precisely the English method of taxing bonds.

Mr. Butler. No, sir.

That sentence I quoted from the Globe, in the first ten min-
utes of my speech.

Mr. Butler. The gentleman is not quoting it now. I said rate.

To show that the gentleman is mistaken, I will read, if he will
allow me, exactly what he said. I quote from the Globe of
June 29, 1868: " Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts. The tax which
the resolution proposes is the same that the English govern-
ment imposes on its bonds."

Mr. Butler. Is that fair? Read the question before it

There is no question before it. I will read : —

"Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Pike called for the yeas
and nays.

" The yeas and nays were ordered.

" Mr. Garfield. I would suggest that the tax on these bonds be made
one hundred per cent. That will fill our Treasury still more rapidly.

" Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts. The tax which the resolution pro-
poses is the same that the English government imposes on its bonds." ^

Now, I ask any gentleman present if this sentence refers to
the rate, and if it refers to the rate, is it true? If the explana-
tion which the gentleman now gives of his remark be correct,
then the remark itself is not true. He can take whichever horn
of the dilemma he chooses.

Mr. Butler. For a single moment In 1806, first five per cent, and
then raised to ten per cent.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is a striking example of the gentle-
man's own sense of fair argument. Since 1 8 16 there has been no
ten per cent income tax on British funds, or any other income.
In the war with Napoleon, a part of the time the tax was five
per cent, and a part of the time it was ten per cent; but since
that war it has never reached six per cent. It was less than six
per cent in the Crimean war, when the tax was doubled. Yet
the gentleman from Massachusetts says in the Globe, from

1 Page 3589.

346 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

which I have quoted, " The tax which the resolution proposes
IS the same that the English government imposes on its bonds " ;
not that they did impose on their bonds fifty years ago, but " the
same the English government imposes on its bonds " now. I
deny that the British government now imposes, or has imposed
for half a century, a tax of ten per cent on the interest of its
bonds ; and, as I have already said, the gentleman plainly de-
clared that the Cobb resolution was in accordance with the
English precedent, and that proposition I have utterly dis-
proved.

I say again, after such a sentence as the gentleman uttered in
the House, it was eminendy proper for the Committee of Ways
and Means to refer to whatever instructions they had in the
case, whether in the terms of the resolution itself, or in the
remarks of those who advocated its passage. The committee
brought in a report precisely in the spirit, and almost in the
words of the resolution. They were ordered to bring in with-
out delay a bill to levy a tax of ten per cent on the interest of
the public bonds, and to require the Secretary of the Treasury
and his subordinates to collect that tax. And the only argu-
ment made in favor of the resolution at the time was the decla-
ration of the gentleman from Massachusetts that it provided for
taxing the interest on our bonds by the same method that the
English government taxes theirs. They took their instruc-
tions with the accompanying comment of the gentleman, and
brought in a bill in strict accordance with their instructions:
that hereafter, whenever the government of the United States
pays interest, it shall withhold ten per cent; that, though it
promised to pay six per cent, it shall pay but five and four
tenths per cent; in short, that it will pay but ninety per cent
of what was promised, any law, bond, or contract to the con-
trary notwithstanding. The country will tliank the Committee
of Ways and Means for the report with which they accompa-
nied the bill, and I do not hesitate to declare that the proposi-
tion sent to the committee — though I cannot believe that the
House so understood it — was a direct and palpable order to
repudiate ten per cent of the entire interest on our debt. We
owe $i30/xx),ooo of interest annually, and the resolution de-
clares that $13,000,000 of it we will refuse to pay. Mr. Chair-
man, I will cordially co-operate with any gentlemen here in any
honorable and proper effort to reduce the general burden of

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 347

taxation ; but on no account and under no circumstances can I
consent to such a measure as that resolution demands.

Mr. Pike. Does the gentleman defend this remark of the Commit-
tee of Ways and Means in their report? " In the argument made in the
House in favor of the resolution, the English income-tax law was referred
to and quoted. There is a law corresponding to that [English] law on
die statute-books of this country, imposing a tax on incomes of five per
cent, while the English law is less than three per cent." Does the gentle-
man say that that is correct in fact, or in spirit, or in results ? I say it is
not correct in fact, in mode of collection, or in results. It has not a kin-
ship to correctness.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have not gone into the special calcula-
tion made in the report of the committee, and am not responsi-
ble for its correctness ; but according to my arithmetic, seven
pence in the pound is less than three per cent. The Committee
of Ways and Means take the same view, but the gentleman
seems to think otherwise.

Mr. Pike. The tax by the English law is deducted from the payment
of interest at the time it is made. Schedule C yielded during the Cri-
mean war the sum of about $9,000,000 in gold as a deduction from the
amount of interest on the British debt ; whereas our income tax is not
assessed on a very large portion of our debt, there being large exemp-
tions by the law. The whole amount owned by the banks is expressly
excluded by the law, and we do not collect, I venture to say, after exam-
ination of the returns, Si, 000,000, probably not §500,000, whereas Great
Britain collected, according to the returns, £1,795,718 during the Cri-
mean war. It is absurd to say or intimate that our tax is larger than the
English, and it will be recollected that the interest on the English debt
upon which the tax is levied is about ten millions less than our interest.

Of course I decline to go into the arithmetical arguments of
the Committee of Ways and Means, as that is entirely aside
from the subject I am discussing. But I have never before
heard it denied that our income law is modelled after the Eng-
lish law. I have shown that the Cobb resolution is not; and I
say again, I am exceedingly glad that the Committee of Ways
and Means have uncovered the not quite transparent humbug
oCthat resolution, as I must be permitted to call it

And now, sir, allow me to say that the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts endeavored last night, very adroitly, to change the
proposition so as to make a new issue altogether. He said that
the Committee of Ways and Means ought to have brought

348 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

m

in an amendment to the income-tax law, to provide for with-
holding at the treasury the amount of income-tax due on the
interest arising from the bonds ; but instead of that they had
brought in a bill having no reference to the income law, but
levying the tax directly on the interest of the bonds. Now, sir,
I take this as a confession that the Cobb resolution is not de-
fensible, for I call the House to witness that not one of the gen-
tlemen who spoke on the subject gave the least intimation that
they were amending or offering a substitute for the income law.
There was nothing in the resolution that had the least reference
to the income tax. It was clearly a measure aside from, and
independent of, the income law. The tax it contemplated would
be in addition to the income tax. Now, I do not propose to
allow this escape from the issue raised. The two propositions
are totally unlike. So long as we tax the interest of the bonds
as a part of the income of citizens, no man can justly find fault
It is not a tax on the bonds, not even a tax on the interest as
such, but only a tax on such part of the interest as takes the
form, and becomes part, of a taxable income. So long as we
place income from the bonds on the same basis with income
from all other sources, and tax by a uniform rule, subjecting
all incomes to the same deductions, exemptions, and limitations,
we are not only within the English precedent, but we are on safe
ground of constitutional right, where justice may be done to tax-
payers, and the public credit will not suffer.

Now, if the House thinks it best to double the income tax, let
it be done. The holders of bonds cannot complain. Income
from bonds should bear its equal proportion. The Constitution
of the United States lays down two rules on the subject of taxa-
tion, namely : a direct tax on property must be levied by ap-
portionment; an indirect tax must be levied by the rule of
uniformity. It will not be claimed that our income tax is a
direct tax, — a tax on property ; for it plainly falls under the
rule of uniformity. But the tax proposed by the Cobb resolu-
tion is a tax on property, — a special, exceptional tax, liable to
measureless abuse. Should the principle prevail, to what ex-
treme may it not be carried ? It is now proposed to tax tjie
interest of the bonds ten per cent. What will hinder the next
Congress from making it twenty, forty, eighty, or any higher
rate? Being exceptional, it would directly hurt none but the
public creditors. But under the wise provisions of the Consti-

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 349

tution, the rule of uniformity protects every class of citizens by
making the protection of each the interest of all.

The gentleman from Massachusetts was very energetic in his
plea for equality of taxation, and quoted a passage from the Chi-
cago platform on that subject, with the manifest purpose of mak-
ing it apply to such a measure as he proposes. I suggest to the
gentleman that he will find a much better text for his doctrines
in the Democratic platform than he finds in ours. The language
of Tammany Hall on this subject is explicit, and expresses in
very vigorous terms the gentleman's ideas of taxation. Their
fourth article is as follows : " Equal taxation of every species
of property according to its real value, including government
bonds and other public securities." This declaration must meet
the hearty approval of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Ac-
cording to this doctrine, the Democratic party are in favor of
taxing equally all property, real and personal. Farms and
bonds, wagons and billiard-tables, wheat and whiskey, bread and
tobacco, all are to be subject to equal taxation, according to
their real value ! Farms to bear no less rate than whiskey, po-
tatoes no less than beer, corn no less than brandy, wheat no less
than gin ! All are to be taken together according to this new
Democratic doctrine, and subjected to a tax not levied as now,
by uniform rule, on the annual value of the income arising from
it, but as a direct tax on the actual value of the articles them-
selves. This new definition of the meaning of equality ought to
be entirely pleasing to the distinguished gentleman from Massa-
chusetts.

The law declares the bonds exempt from taxation by all State
and municipal authorities. Now, if this Democratic resolution
means that the bonds are to be subjected to a direct property
tax, it must mean State taxation ; and that not only is forbidden
in the law that created the bonds, but, according to repeated de-
cisions of the Supreme Court, is forbidden by the Constitution
of the United States. If the resolution means that Congress
ought to tax all farm and agricultural implements, all property
real and personal, according to its real value, the absurdity is
so apparent as to need no comment. The established rule that
the States levy direct taxes, and Congress indirect, would be
utterly broken down.

Now, Mr. Chairman, allow me to suggest that there are two
ways of managing taxation and the public debt. One is to strike

35v> TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

vliicctly at the principal or interest of the bonds, and greatly
iwliKo their value for the sake of adding a little to the revenue.
I hat is the method of the gentleman from Massachusetts and
hiji associates. For the sake of withholding $13,000,000 from
the public creditors, they would depreciate the value of every
I'niteU States bond in existence. The bonds have already
fallen an average of one per cent since this resolution passed
the House.

Mh, l*iKK. Are they not to-day as high as they were before?

No, sir; I have the quotation in to-day*s paper, and they are
more than one cent lower than they were before that resolution
|>as4e(l.

Mr. Pike. In London?

No, sir; here. If the country fully believed that this ruinous
policy would become the law, the depreciation would be very
jjreat. For every cent of depreciation, $21,000,000 is lost by
our creditors, but not gained by us. The creditors lose the
money, and the nation loses credit. And under the system of
these gentlemen, what would be our condition when we find it
necessary to negotiate a loan ? That necessity is now almost
upon us, for we have a bill pending to fund $1,800,000,000 of
our debt. Nobody expects that we can pay the debt as fast as
it matures, but we shall be compelled to go into the market and
negotiate new loans. Let this system of taxation be pursued;
let another Congress put the tax at twenty per cent, another at
forty per cent, and another at fifty per cent, or one hundred per
cent; let the principle be once adopted, — the rate is only a
question of discretion, — and where will you be able to nego-
tiate a loan except at the most ruinous sacrifice? Let such
legislation prevail as the gentleman urges, and can we look any
man in the face and ask him to loan us money? If we do not
keep faith to-day, how can we expect to be trusted hereafter?

I have said there are two methods of managing debt and tax-
ation. One I have just been considering. The other is advo-
cated, not by the gentleman from Massachusetts, nor in the
Democratic platform, but in the platform adopted at Chicago,
in which it is declared that —

" We denounce all forms of repudiation as a national crime ; and the
national honor requires the payment of the public indebtedness, in the
uttermost good faith, to all creditors at home and abroad, not only ac-

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 35 '

cording to the letter, but the spirit, of the laws under which it was con-
tracted.

" It is due to the labor of the nation that taxation should be equal-
ized, and reduced as rapidly as the national faith will permit.

" The national debt, contracted as it has been for the preservation of
the Union for all time to come, should be extended over a fair period
for redemption ; and it is the duty of Congress to reduce the rate of
interest thereon whenever it can be honestly done.

" That the best policy to diminish our burden of debt is to so improve
our credit that capitalists will seek to loan us money at lower rates of
interest than we now pay, and must continue to pay so long as repudia-
tion, partial or total, open or covert, is threatened or suspected."

I quote these declarations with feelings of pride and satisfac-
tion. I am proud of that great party which, having saved the life
of the nation by its valor, now declares its unalterable purpose
to save, by its truth and devotion, what is still more precious,
the faith and honor of the nation. There was a declaration
made by an old English gentleman in the days of Charles II.
which does honor to human nature. He said he was willing
at any time to give his life for the good of his country ; but he
would not do a mean thing to save his country from ruin. So,
sir, ought a citizen to feel in regard to our financial affairs. The
people of the United States can afford to make any sacrifice for
their country, and the history of the last war has proved their
willingness; but the humblest citizen cannot aff*ord to do a
mean or dishonorable thing to save even this glorious republic.
For my own part, I will consent to no act of dishonor. And I
look upon this proposition — though I cannot think the gcn-
tieman meant it to be so — as having in itself the very essence
of dishonor. I shall, therefore, to the utmost of my ability re-
sist it.

Suppose that the credit of the United States were as good as
the credit of Massachusetts. Only a few months ago that State
negotiated a loan in London on terms so favorable as to put to
shame our attempts at funding our debt. During the whole
war, her credit has been far better than ours. And how stand
her old five per cent bonds to-day? I hold in my hand the
London Economist of a month ago, and I find the Massachu-
setts five per cent bonds quoted at 89 and 90, while the ten-
forty gold-bearing five per cent United States bonds are 68^ ; a
difference of twenty-one cents on the dollar. And why this great

'-

352 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

difference? Massachusetts has not only kept faith through all
the trials of the war, but she has not sought technical grounds
on which to escape from her obligations. She might have
lightened the burden of her debt, as many other States did,
by paying her interest in currency instead of in coin, under
the protection of the legal-tender act. But she paid every debt
in accordance with the letter and spirit of the contract. Her
bonds exhibit the result. If the credit of the United States
were as good as that of Massachusetts, we could fund our whole
debt at $400,ooo,ocx) less cost to the nation than we can fund it
on our own credit. This example fully illustrates the two lines
of financial policy.

Mr. Speaker, I desire to say, in conclusion, that, in my opin-
ion, all these efforts to pursue a doubtful and unusual, if not dis-
honorable policy, in reference to our public debt, spring from a
lack of faith in the intelligence and conscience of the American
people. Hardly an hour passes when we do not hear it whis-
pered that some such policy as this must be adopted, or the
people will by and by repudiate the debt. For my own part, I
do not share that distrust. The people of this country have
shown, by the highest proofs which human nature can give, that
wherever the path of honor and duty may lead, however steep
and rugged it may be, they are ready to walk in it. They feel
the burden of the public debt, but they remember that it is the
price of blood, — the precious blood of half a million brave men,
who died to save to us all that makes life desirable or property
secure. I believe they will, after a full hearing, discard all
methods of paying their debts by sleight of hand, or by any
scheme which crooked wisdom may devise. If public morality
did not protest against any such plan, enlightened public selfish-
ness would refuse its sanction. Let us be true to our trust a
few years longer, and the next generation will be here with its
seventy-five millions of population, and its sixty billions of
wealth. To them the debt that then remains will be a light
burden. They will pay the last bond according to the letter
and spirit of the contract, with the same sense of grateful duty
with which they will pay the pensions of the few surviving sol-
diers of the great war for the Union,

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 353

At different times Mr. Garfield gave full expression to his views touch-
ing all forms of the bond-taxing proposition. He opposed taxing bonds
already issued, whether in American or in foreign hands, as inexpedient
and contrary to the contract. He insisted that bonds should not be
exemptec\ from the operation of the incdme tax. He held that to issue
new bonds subject to taxation would be useless, since what was received
from the bondholder in taxes would be paid back to him in interest. He
held that the States could not tax the bonds without the consent of the
United States, and this consent the United States, even if disposed, couP
not legally give. The legal argument on this point he stated thus, in the
House of Representatives, July 17, 1868.

Mr. Speaker, — I desire to say a word on the pending
amendment, for the purpose of putting on record the opinions
of one of the very ablest lawyers who ever lived in this coun-
try on the question of the right of Congress to authorize a State
to tax the bonds of the United States. I had occasion, two
years ago, in a speech on this subject, to quote this passage
from Mr. Webster. But before quoting it, I wish to state the
authorities upon this subject.

I take it that no lawyer in this House who has examined the
authorities will assert that any State can, of its own right, tax
the bonds of the United States. But the question has been
raised whether Congress may not confer upon a State the right
to tax them. I particularly desire to call attention on that ques-
tion to the authorities to which I refer.

First, let me state in brief the decisions of the Supreme Court
to the effect that a State has not the right to tax the bonds of
the United States. It was decided by Chief Justice Marshall,
in 18 19, in the case of McCulloch v. The State of Maryland
et aiy It was decided again by that same distinguished jurist
in the case of Weston et al, v. The City Council of Charleston.*
It was decided in the case of Osborn et al, v. The Bank of the
United States,^ in 1824, when Henry Clay, as counsel, argued
other features of the cause before the court, but declined to offer
any argument on the question of the power of the State to tax
the bank, and alleged as a reason that the point was so well set-
tled that argument was unnecessary. It was decided again in
1862, in the case of The Bank of Commerce v. New York City; *
and still later, in the case of Van Allen v. The Assessors.*

» 4 Whcaton, 316. « 2 Peters, 449. • 9 Wheaton, 738.

* 3 Black, 620. * 3 Wallace, 573.

VOL. L 23

354 TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS.

Now in regard to the power of Congress to authorize a
State to tax the bonds of the United States, I ask the Clerk to
read a passage from a speech of Daniel Webster on the very
question under discussion. The speech was delivered in the
Senate of the United States, May 28, 1832. The question was
on an amendment oJfTered by Mr. Moore, of Alabama, propos-
ing, first, that the Bank of the United States should not estab-
lish or continue any office of discount, or deposit, or branch
bank, in any State, without the consent and approbation of the
State; second, that all such offices and branches should be
subject to taxation according to the amount of their loans and
issues, in like manner as other banks or other property should
be liable to taxation.

'' Now, sir, I doubt exceedingly our power to adopt this amendment,
and I pray the deliberate consideration of the Senate in regard to this
point

'' In the first place, let me ask, What is the constitutional ground on
which Congress created this corporation, and on which we now propose
to continue it? There is no express authority to create a bank, or any
other corporation, given to us by the Constitution. The power is derived
by implication. It has been exercised, and can be exercised, only on the
ground of a just necessity. It is to be maintained, if at all, on the alle-
gation that the establishment of a national bank is a just and necessary
means for carrying on the government, and executing the powers con-
ferred on Congress by the Constitution. On this ground Congress has
established this bank, and on this it is now proposed to be continued.
And it has already been judicially decided that, Congress having estab-
lished a bank for these purposes, the Constitution of the United States
prohibits the States from taxing it. Observe, sir, it is the Constitution,
not the law^ which lays this prohibition on the States. The charter of
the Bank does not declare that the State shall not tax it. It says not
one word on that subject. The restraint is imposed, not by Congress,
but by a higher authority, the Constitution.

" Now, sir, I ask how we can relieve the States from this constitutional
prohibition. It is true that this prohibition is not imposed in express
terms, but it results from the general provisions of the Constitution, and
has been judicially decided to exist in full force. This is a protection,
then, which the Constitution of the United States, by its own force, holds
over this institution, which Congress has deemed necessary to be created
in order to carry on the government, so soon as Congress, exercising its
own judgment, has chosen to create it. Can we throw off from this gov-
emment this constitutional protection? I think it clear we cannot We

TAXATION OF UNITED STATES BONDS. 355

cannot repeal the Constitution. We cannot say that every power, every
branchy every institution, and every law of this government, shall not have
all the force, all the sanction, and all the protection, which the Constitu-
tion gives it" *

Such was the opinion of the great " Defender of the Consti-
tution." He believed that the power of a State to tax the se-
curities of the United States is prohibited by a higher authority
than a statute of Congress ; that it is prohibited by the Con-
stitution itself. I have made the quotation to show that Mr.
Webster did not believe that Congress could constitutionally
delegate to the States the authority to tax the securities of the
United States.

1 Works of Daniel Webster, Vol. III. pp. 409, 41a

MR. STEVENS AND THE FIVE-TWENTY

BONDS.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION MADE IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, July zy, 1868.

MR. SPEAKER, — I will first ask the Clerk to read some
remarks made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
on Friday, the 17th instant, so that the statements to which I
desire to reply may be recalled to the recollection of members.
He was speaking of the payment of the five-twenty bonds.

The Clerk read as follows : —

" Mr. Stevens of Pennsylvania. I want to say that if this loan was to
be paid according to the intimation of the gentleman from Illinois,* — if I
knew that any party in the country would go for paying in coin that
which is payable in money, thus enhancing it one half, — if I knew there
was such a platform and such a determination this day on the part of any
party, I would vote for the other side, Frank Blair and all. I would vote
for no such swindle upon the taxpayers of this country ; I would vote
for no such speculation in favor of the large bondholders, the million-
naires, who took advantage of our folly in granting them coin payment of
interest. And I declare — well, it is hard to say it — but if even Frank
Blair stood upon the platform of paying the bonds according to the con-
tract, and the Republican candidates stood upon the platform of paying
bloated speculators twice the amount which we agreed to pay them, then
I would vote for Frank Blair, even if a worse man than Seymoiur headed
the ticket. That is all I want to say." *

A few days afterward I expressed my surprise at these state-
ments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and referred to the
fact that, in the debate of 1862, on the passage of the bill author-
izing the five-twenty bonds, the gentleman distinctly declared
that these bonds were payable in gold, and that such was the

1 Mr. Ross. s Congressional Globe, July 17, 186S, p. 4178.

THE FIVE^TWENTY BONDS, 357

unanimous opinion and intention of Congress at that time.
Yesterday the gentleman read from manuscript the following : —

" Mr. Stevens of Pennsylvania, rising to a personal explanation, said :
I desire to say a few words relating to what I observe reported in the
Globe of the remarks of General Garfield and others with regard to what
I said in debate on the passage of the five-twenty bill. I find that it is
all taken firom the report of Secretary McCuUoch, which I had never read.
I am therefore firee to presume that what those gentlemen quoted, rather
than said, is a total perversion of the truth. Had it not been introduced
from so respectable a quarter in this House, it would not be too harsh, as
there presented, to call it an absolute falsehood. I do not know that I
should have taken any notice of what the various papers are repeating, some
of them half Rebel, some half Secession, and more of them, I suppose,
in the pay of the bondholders. I shall not now undertake to explain
the whole of this matter, as I am too feeble ; but I shall take occasion
hereafter to expose the villany of those who charge me with having said,
on the passage of the five-twenty bill, that its bonds were payable in coin.
The whole debate from which they quote, and all my remarks which they
cited, were made upon an entirely different bill, as might be seen by ob-
serving that I speak only of the payment of gold after twenty years, when
the bill I was speaking of, as well as all other liabilities, were payable in
coin, as no one doubted the resumption of specie payments. My speech
was made upon the introduction of the legal-tender bill, on which the
interest for twenty years was to be paid in currency. No question of
paying the interest in gold arose till some time after, when the bill had
been passed by the House, sent to the Senate, returned, and went to a
committee of conference, when, for the first time, the gold-bearing ques-
tion was introduced ; and yet all that these wise and truthful gentlemen
have quoted from me took place in debate some weeks before the gold
question, either principal or interest, had arisen in the House. I only
now wish to caution the public against putting faith in the fabrications
of demagogues and usurers, and they will find that every word which I
have asserted with regard to myself is true to the letter.*' ^

Now, Mr. Speaker, I can permit no such denial of the truth
of my statement, and particularly no such personal attack, to go
unchallenged. I therefore appeal to the records.

On the 22d of January, 1862, Hon E. G. Spaulding, of
New York, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported
House Bill No. 240, — a bill to authorize the issue of United
States notes, and for the redemption or funding thereof, and
for funding the floating debt of the United States. It con-

^ Congressional Globe, July 22, 1868, p. 4335-

3S8 THE FIVE-TWENTY BONDS.

sisted of three sections. The first authorized the issue of
$100,000,000 legal-tender notes; the second authorized the issue
of $500,000,000 six per cent twenty-year bonds, with which
to fund the legal-tender notes, and other floating debt of the
United Statesf j^ the third was mainly administrative (see copy of
original biU, G\k^, Vol. XLVI. p. 522). This bill, with but few
important change^,' became the act of February 25, 1862. On
t% day of its introduction it was printed, and made the spe-
cial order for January 28, when a searching debate on its pro-
visions began, and continued with an interruption of but one
legislative day to and including the 6th of February.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania took no active part in the
debate until the day of its passage, when, after general debate
on the bill in Committee of the Whole was closed by order
of the House, Hon. E. G. Spaulding yielded to Mr. Stevens
most of the hour to which he was entitled, and then the gen-
tleman made a vigorous and incisive speech, as he always did,
attacking the several substitutes that had been ojffered, and
defending the bill of the Committee of Ways and Means. One
substitute had been oJffered by Mr. Vallandigham, of Ohio;
another, by Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New York ; another, by
Mr. Morrill, of Vermont ; and another, by Mr. Horton, of Ohio,
which embraced the leading features of all the others, and was
finally selected as the one to be voted on in opposition to the
bill of the committee. This substitute did not make United
States notes a legal tender for private debts, and this was the
chief issue between the advocates and opponents of the bill of
the committee.

A large part of the speech of the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania was devoted to the defence of the legal-tender clause of
the bill. He held that without the legal-tender provision the
notes would depreciate ; with it, they would remain at par. He
quoted a long passage from the English writer, McCulloch, to
show that paper money which is a legal tender will always
be at par as long as the amount issued is not in excess of the
wants of the country. At that point a question was asked him
by Mr. Thomas, of Massachusetts. I quote the following : —

'' Mr. Thomas. I desire to ask the gentleman a question in connection
with that passage. McCulloch laid down the doctrine, that the paper is
limited to the amount necessary for currency. Let me ask the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania whether he now expects, in managing these

it
ii

THE FIVE-TWENTY BONDS. 359

financial matters, to limit the amount of these notes to $150,000,000.
Is that his expectation ?

'' Mr. Stephens. It is. I expect that is the maximum amount to be
issued.

Mr. Thomas. You do not expect to call for any more ?

Mr. Stevens. No, sir ; I do not" ^

The gentleman then proceeded to show that these legal-tender
notes would soon be used to buy the bonds authorized in the
second section, and that the bonds would be a good investment
He said : —

" This money would soon lodge in large quantities with the capitalists
and banks, who must take them [the notes]. But the instinct of gain —
perhaps I may call it avarice — would not allow them to keep it long un-
productive. A dollar in a miser's safe unproductive is a sore disturbance.
Where could they invest it? In United States loans, at six per cent,
redeemable in gold in twenty years, — the best and most valuable per-
manent investment that could be desired. The government would thus
again possess such notes in exchange for bonds, and again reissue them.
I have no doubt that thus the $500,000,000 of bonds authorized would
be absorbed in less time than would be needed by government, and thus
$150,000,000 would do the work of $500,000,000 of bonds.

" When further loans were wanted, you need only authorize the sale
of more bonds. The same $150,000,000 of notes would be ready to
take them." ^

A little further on he said : —

" Gentiemen are clamorous in favor of those who have debts due
them, lest the debtor should the more easily pay his debt. I do not
much sympathize with such importunate money-lenders. But widows
and orphans are interested, and in tears lest their estates should be
badly invested. I pity no one who lias his money invested in United
States bonds, payable in gold in twenty years, with interest semi-
annually."

He then proceeded to review the several substitutes, stating
first the plan of the committee. I quote from the same
page : —

" Let me restate the various projects. Ours proposes United States
notes, secured at the end of twenty years to be paid in coin, and the
interest raised by taxation semiannually ; such notes to be money, and
of uniform value throughout the Union. No better investment, in my

1 Congressional Globe, February 6, 1862. p. 688. ^ Ibid., p. 688.

36o THE FIVE^TWENTY BONDS.

judgment, can be had. No better currency can be invented

The proposition of the gentleman from New York ^ authorizes the issu-
ing of seven per cent bonds, payable in thirty-one years, to be sold
($250,000,000 of it) or exchanged for the currency of the banks of
Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.

" Sir, this proposition seems to me to lack every element of wise legis-
kition. Make a loan payable in irredeemable currency, and pay that in
its depreciated condition to our contractors, soldiers, and creditors gen-
erally I The banks would issue unlimited amounts of what would become
trash, and buy good hard-money bonds of the nation. Was there ever
such a temptation to swindle ? "

On the following page, and near the end of his speech, he
says : —

'' Here, then, in a few words, lies your choice. Throw bonds at six
or seven per cent on the market between this and December, enough to
raise at least $600,000,000, .... or issue United States notes, not re-
deemable in coin, but fundable in specie-paying bonds at twenty years."

In a few moments after the conclusion of this speech the
House voted to reject the substitute of Mr. Horton, and adopted
the bill advocated by Mr. Stevens. It was sent to the Senate,
and but few important amendments were made, the chief of
which was that the legal-tender clause should not apply to
duties on imports, but that they should be paid in coin, and the
coin should be applied to payment of the interest on the bonds,
and to the reduction of the principal of the debt. No change
was made in the bill which in any manner affected the question
of the payment of the principal of the bonds. On the 14th of
February the bill came back to the House, and was made a
special order for February 19, when it was again debated, some
of the amendments adopted, and some rejected ; and after sub-
mitting the differences between the two houses to a conference
committee it was passed, February 25, and on the following day
became a law by receiving the approval of the President.

I have carefully gone over all the proceedings, as recorded
in the Globe and in the Journal of the House, and I have not
found an intimation made, directly or indirectly, by any member,
that it was ever dreamed the principal of these bonds could be
paid in anything but gold. On the contrary, all who did refer
to the subject spoke in the most positive terms that, as a matter
of course, they were payable in gold.

^ Mr. Conkling.

THE FIVE-TWENTY BONDS. 361

Mr. Spaulding, of New York, said : " They intend to foot all
the bills, and ultimately pay the whole amount, principal and
interest, in gold and silver.'' ^

Mr. Pomeroy, who is now a member of the House, said:
" The credit of the government is alike bound for the payment
of both classes of indebtedness ultimately in gold. Each de-
rives its entire value from that." '

Mr. Pike, of Maine, now a member of the House, said : " With
all due deference to the gentlemen who differ with me on this
subject, it does seem to me that this matter of the payment of
the interest in coin is a controversy about goats' wool. The
interest will be paid in coin in any event." *

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have proved from the record the cor-
rectness of every declaration I made in reference to the opinion
of Congress at the time of the passage of the five-twenty bill,
and particularly the opinion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
This might seem sufHcient, but I wish to carry the investigation
a step further.

About one year later, when the House was debating the bill
for issuing what are now known as ten-forty bonds, the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania, who had offered an amendment to make
the interest payable in paper, held the following colloquy with
Mr. Horton, of Ohio : —

" Mr. Stevens. It would be fair, I suppose, to state that my amend-
ment proposes to pay for these bonds at the end of ten years in coin,
but to pay the interest in currency, while the bill of the Committee of
Ways and Means proposes to redeem the bonds in currency.

" Mr. Horton. I cannot state what the gentleman asks me to state,
because, according to my view, it is not correct. The bill of the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means does not contemplate paying in paper.

" Mr. Stevens. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

" Mr. Horton. Certainly.

" Mr. Stevens. Are not the bonds payable * in lawful money,' what-
ever that is ?

" Mr. Horton. No, sir.

" Mr. Stevens. Then the Committee of Ways and Means and I do
not agree as to its meaning.

" Mr. Horton. I speak only for myself, and I appeal to the bill.
The policy of the bill is to pay the interest in coin, and to collect the
imposts in coin, and to redeem the bonds in twenty years in coin." *

1 Congressional Globe, Feb. 19, 1862, p. 88a. « Ibid., p. 885.

« Ibid, p. 887. « Ibid, Jan. 19, 1863, p. 388.

362 THE FIVE^TWENTY BONDS.

So far as I can learn, this was the first word ever spoken in
Congress suggesting the possibility of paying these bonds in
anything but coin.

Now, notice the effect of this suggestion. On the following
day, January 20, while the same bill was pending, Mr. Thomas,
of Massachusetts, moved to amend by inserting the words " in
coin " in the first section. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, moved to
add the words " and buUion." Then the following discussion
took place : —

" Mr. Horton. I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman
from Vermont, which is to include bullion with gold in the payment of
these bonds ; and am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, to make them payable in gold. I wish to say here that
the Committee of Ways and Means, in framing this bill, never dreamed
that these twenty-year bonds were to be payable in anything other than
gold, until the gentleman from Pennsylvania told it yesterday upon the
floor of the House.

" Mr. Stevens. I do not like to refer to what occurred in committee,
but I ask the gentieman from Vermont whether he did not state that he
expected they would be paid in legal money ?

'' Mr. Horton. I say to the gendeman and to this committee that I
never heard an expression by any member of the Committee of Ways
and Means of the possibility that these bonds were to be payable in any-
thing other than coin. The form here proposed is the form always used
by the government in the issue of these bonds, and they have always
been paid in coin up to this day; even as late as the 31st of Decem-
ber the bonds then coming due were paid in coin, in accordance with the
uniform established practice of the government.

" Mr. Stevens. I ought to say that I am informed by the gentieman
from Vermont that he did not make the remark in the committee which
I just attributed to him. I so understood him.

" Mr. Horton. I know nothing of any such remark." *

The amendment of Mr. Thomas was then adopted without
division.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, I have shown that when the original five-
twenty bond bill passed the House, in 1862, all who referred to
the subject stated that the principal of those bonds was payable
in gold ; that the gentleman from Pennsylvania so stated five
distinct times, and no member suggested anything to the con-
trary; that when, in 1863, that gentleman raised a doubt on the

^ Congressional Globe, January 20, 1863, p. 412.

THE FIVE^TWENTY BONDS. 363

subject, he was promptly met by the statement of a leading
member of the Committee of Ways and Means that he never
before heard such a suggestion, and nobody on the Committee
of Ways and Means dreamed of the possibility of paying them
in anything but coin ; and finally, from abundant caution, and
because of the doubt thus raised, the words " in coin " were
inserted in the law authorizing the ten-forty bonds, and, so far
as the record shows, no other member, either in 1862 or in
1863, shared the gentleman's doubt. Let it be remembered
that I have not discussed the language of the law, but only its
history, and the construction placed upon it by those who made
it at the time they made it.

INDIAN AFFAIRS.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON

VARIOUS OCCASIONS.

On the 8th of December, 1868, Mr. Garfield reported, from the Com-
mittee on Military Affairs, a bill providing for the removal of the Indian
Bureau from the Interior Department to the War Department He sup-
ported the measure in the remarks following.

The Indian Peace Commission mentioned below was organized August
6, 1867, under an act approved the previous July, and consisted of four
civilians and four army officers. The object of the Commission was " to
establish peace with certain hostile Indian tribes." More definitely, it
was to remove, if possible, the causes of war ; to secure, as far as practi-
cable, the frontier settiements, and the safe building of the railroads to
the Pacific ; and to suggest or inaugurate some plan for the civilization of
the Indians.

MR. SPEAKER, — I wish to take the time of the House
for but a few moments. I shall state briefly the purpose
of the bill, and will then yield some time to the gentleman from
Minnesota,^ chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs.

It will be noticed in the first place, as the title of the bill indi-
cates, that it proposes to restore the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
the Department of War, where all that class of business was
originally transacted. When the Department of the Interior
was formed, in 1849, the management of Indian affairs was taken
from the Secretary of War and placed in the hands of the Sec-
retary of the Interior. This bill does not raise the question of
the Indian policy to be pursued ; it does not propose to settle
any theory of tribal relations, or the relation of the government
to the Indian tribes ; it does not propose to determine whether
we shall continue to treat them as separate nations subject to
treaty stipulations ; nor does it touch the establishment or man-

1 Mr. WindonL

INDIAN AFFAIRS, 365

agement of reservations. It affects directly no one of these
questions. It provides merely that the Interior Department
shall surrender the management of Indian affairs to the War
Department; and, in order that there may be no sudden shock
in the transfer, it is provided that all the duties now enjoined by
law upon the Secretary of the Interior in relation to Indians
shall be discharged by the Secretary of War, and that without
change of system or policy.

Then the bill provides further, in the second section, that the
Secretary of War shall be authorized, whenever in his opinion
it will promote economy and the efficiency of the Indian ser-
vice, to detail officers of the army to perform all the duties
now enjoined by law upon Indian agents, sub-agents, and other
persons employed in the Indian service. It does not imme-
diately abolish all the offices in connection with the Indian
Bureau, but it leaves it to the discretion of the Secretary of
War to fill them with officers of the army when the interests
of the service require it. I have no doubt it will ultimately
result in putting officers of the army in the places of the civil-
ians now employed in that department; but it was thought
best not to say that all civilians shall at once be dismissed the
service, and military officers substituted. It is left for the pres-
ent to the discretion of the Secretary of War.

The third section provides that all contracts for transportation
in connection with the Indian service shall hereafter be made in
the same manner as contracts for supplies or transportation for
the army; and in the amendment which I have added, — which
is the only material change in the bill since I introduced it last
June, — it is provided that all expenditures of money, all appro-
priations, and all payments made on account of Indian affairs,
shall hereafter be kept separate and exhibited under the head
of " Expenditures on account of Indians.'* Hitherto these ex-
penses have not been thus separated, and it is unjust to the
army to charge as a part of its ordinary cost all the expenses
of an Indian war; moreover, we ought always to be able to
classify our expenses, and know definitely what is done with the
money. I have therefore added to the third section a clause re-
quiring that the accounts, except for the pay of officers and sol-
diers, shall be kept separate. It was thought that the monthly
pay of officers and enlisted men employed in the Indian ser-
vice could not be kept separate from the pay of the rest of

366 INDIAN AFFAIRS.

the army without complicating too much the accounts of the
department

The fourth section authorizes the Secretary of War to with-
hold all special licenses for traders, and otherwise to regulate
the business of Indian trading.

Now, without going at all into the general question of what
ought to be done with the Indians, I am satisfied that we shall
make a successful beginning of the whole business by putting
all this work into the hands of the War Department, where all
the officers are subject to military law and to the jurisdiction of
courts-martial. The great advantage of the measure will be
that we shall abolish a bureau and all its appendages, and at the
same time, without additional cost for salaries, secure for the
work efficient agents who are subject to a much stricter account-
ability than civilians can be subjected to. We shall thus remove
one of the most tempting opportunities for corruption known to
our government I do not, however, desire to go into the
debate. The developments of the last year, it seems to me,
have been amply sufficient to bring the subject fully to the
attention of the people.

I will add, that two years ago this bill, in almost the very
words of the print before us, passed the House of Representa-
tives by a large majority, but failed in the Senate. Last session
we were not able to reach it, or I believe it would have passed
again. Then there were some prominent officers connected
with the Indian Peace Commission who were not in favor of the
transfer. Now I understand that, since the developments of
the last fall, nearly all of those officers have come to believe
that the transfer is necessary. General Grant, General Sherman,
General Sheridan, and nearly all the leading officers of the army
connected with the Indian service, recommend this as the initial
step in the direction of reform. We therefore propose this
measure by itself, simply making the transfer to begin with, and
opening the way for any discussion of the Indian problem which
it may be thought best to enter upon hereafter.

[After Mr. Windom and several other gentlemen had spoken, Mr. Gar-
field closed the debate in these remarks. The bill passed the House,
but never came to a vote in the Senate.]

Mr. Speaker, — I will close this debate by calling attention to
two or three points that have been made. And, first, let me
correct my friend from Minnesota in regard to the decision of

INDIAN AFFAIRS, 367

the Peace Commission which sat last year and made a report in
reference to Indian affairs. That Commission were divided on
the question of transferring the bureau to the War Department,
and they finally, in the hope of maintaining peace with the
Indians, recommended, first, that for the present the bureau
should not be transferred to the War Department, but should be
made a separate, independent department ; and, secondly, that
Congress be asked to pass an act fixing a day not later than
the 1st of February, 1869, when all subordinate officers, super-
intendents, and agents of Indian affairs should be dismissed
from their positions, because they had become so mixed up
with frauds that they could not be trusted. All this, however,
was based upon the hope that peace with the Indians might be
maintained. But the Commission very distinctly said that, if we
were to have war, the bureau ought to be transferred to the War
Department.

Now, what are the facts? The Commission concluded several
treaties with the Indians. Here let me say that it seems to me
a sort of mockery for the representatives of the government of
the United States to sit down in a wigwam and make treaties
with a lot of painted and half-naked savages, only to have those
treaties trampled under foot the very moment our officers are
out of sight. This whole practice of making treaties with our
wards is ridiculous. Still, I will not enter upon that subject.

Mr. Ingersoll. I would ask the gentieman if the Peace Commission
itself did not state that, in a great majority of cases, the first infi*action of
the treaty came fi-om the whites instead of the Indians.

I happen to hold in my hand a much later document than the
report of the Peace Commission, and I will read from it. It
is the official report of Lieutenant-General Sherman, dated No-
vember I, 1868, in which he gives a detailed and elaborate
account of what has transpired in the Indian country since
the Peace Commission sat, and he tells the reasons why that
Commission took the course it did. He says that, soon after
the conclusion of the treaties, without any new provocation on
the part of the whites, the Indians, by concerted action, began
this terrible war upon the frontier. This report very fully an-
swers the suggestion of the gentleman from Illinois,^ that all
aggressions are made by the whites. After giving a detailed
account of the Indian hostilities, and what had been done to

* Mr. Ingcmoll.

368 INDIAN AFFAIRS.

repress thenii General Sherman argues the subject elaborately,
and says, '' I have to recommend that the Bureau of Indian
Affairs should be transferred back to the War Department,
where it belonged prior to 1849." That is his official report of
November i, 1868.

Mr. CAVANAubH. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio if the Peace
Commission was not divided upon this question at Chicago ?

I do not know how it was divided at Chicago. I know it was
divided last year, and that the majority was against the transfer
of the bureau ; it may have been divided this year, but the Com-
mission report in favor of the transfer now.

Mr. Mungen. Did not General Sherman state, when he was before
the Committee on Indian Affairs of this House and the joint committee
of the two houses last session, that if the appropriation for the annuities,
or rather the advancement of the annuities, was not made last May, ac-
cording to the arrangement, it would bring on a war, and did not the
failure to make the appropriations produce the war?

I cannot say whether he did or did not. If he did, I am not
aware of that fact. I know that General Sherman says, in his
recent official report, that this war was brought on, not by any
fault of the whites, but by the faithlessness and wickedness of
the Indians themselves.

Now General Grant sends his annual report to the Secretary
of War under date of November 24, 1868, only two weeks ago,
and in it he uses this language : ** I would earnestly renew my
recommendation of last year, that the control of the Indians
be transferred to the War Department. I call special attention
to the recommendation of General Sherman on the subject. It
has my earnest approval. It is unnecessary that the arguments
in favor of the transfer should be restated. The necessity for it
becomes stronger and more evident every day.*' Thus it will be
seen that the General of the Army approves the reports of Gen-
eral Sherman and General Sheridan. All this is really in ac-
cordance with the report of the Peace Commission ; for they
say, if we are to have war, the bureau had better go to the War
Department. And in the same report from which my friend
from Minnesota ^ read, there is a description of the difficulty we
are now in. It is in these words : —

" As things now are, it is difficult to fix responsibility. When errors
are committed, the civil department blames the military; the military

^ Mr. Windom.

INDIAN AFFAIRS. 369

retort by the charge of inefficiency or corruption against the officers of
the bureau. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs escapes responsibility
by pointing to the Secretary of the Interior, while the Secretary may well
respond that, though in theory he may be responsible, practically he is
governed by the head of the bureau. We therefore recommend that
Indian affairs be committed to an independent bureau or department.
Whether the head of the department should be made a member of the
President's Cabinet is a matter for the discretion of Congress and your-
self, and may be as well settled without any suggestions from us.**

That report was made a year ago. With this triple-headed
monster managing Indian affairs, neither head knowing how
much it has to do, each one throwing the blame of every fail-
ure on the other, with the events of the past season and the
war we are now suffering, before us, and with the recommen-
dation of all those most intimately acquainted with the sub-
ject, — with all these facts before us, I hardly think the case
needs further argument.

I desire, however, to say a word in reply to my friend from
California.^ He says we should have an Indian policy first, and
make the transfer afterwards. I think not, Mr. Speaker. Let
us meet the present necessities of the case by making one de-
partment of the government wholly responsible, and call to the
work officers who are amenable to military laws, and we shall
have taken a great step toward reforming abuses. After that
we can go forward and determine what shall be done with the
Indians, — whether they shall be confined to reservations, and
not have any rights which white men are bound to respect
when they leave their reservations, or whether we shall make a
rule that no white who enters an Indian reservation without
authority shall have any rights which an Indian is bound to re-
spect. Whatever we do ought to be the result of deliberation
and examination.

Pending the Indian Appropriation Bill, February 4, 1869, Mr. Gar-
field made these remarks. He had moved as an amendment his bill
transferring the Indian Bureau to the War Department, which the Speaker
ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker, — Under the rules of this House we are not
able to place the question of what shall be done with the Indian

1 Mr. Higby.
VOL. I. 24

370

INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Bureau in such a shape as to compel the consideration of the
expenditure of the public money in connection with the sub-
ject. We are therefore brought back to the question whether
we shall expend $2,500,000 of public treasure, as provided in
this bill. Here we must open our eyes to the channels through
which the money is to pass, the organization by which it is to
be disbursed. Of the officers at the head of the Indian Bureau
in Washington I have nothing to say ; for aught I know, they
are worthy men. I speak of the organization of the bureau,
and its practical workings. As an illustration of the manner
in which public money is used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
I will quote a passage from a letter which I have recently re-
ceived from a distinguished officer of the army, well known to
me and to the members of this House, who has seen many
years* service in the Western Territories.

'' I speak what I know when I say that of every dollar appropriated
by Congress for the Sioux during the last ten years, eighty cents have

been stolen, — only twenty cents reaching the Indians In 1859,

when the affiliated tribes were brought from Texas, a large sum was paid
for moving them, although they moved without aid. They were settled
on the Washita, and fed by the government until the Rebellion broke
out. They never exceeded twenty-five hundred in number, yet they
were mustered on paper as from six to eight thousand. The contract
was let to feed them one pound of beef and one pound of flour per soul
daily. Texas cattle, not averaging over four hundred pounds net, were
issued to them at eight hundred pounds; and although the contract
called for good merchantable flour, yet during the year and a half I was
there the Indians never saw an ounce of flour. The agents gave them
shorts and middlings, while the government paid for flour."

There is much more in this letter of the same sort.

Mr. Ross. How many years has that officer been stealing from tlie
Indians ?

That oflScer is not in any way connected with the disburse-
ment of money for Indian purposes. He speaks as an observer
of the workings of the present system.

Now, after a considerable study of this subject, I am com-
pelled to say that no branch of the national government is so
spotted with fraud, so tainted with corruption, so utterly un-
worthy of a free and enlightened government, as this Indian
Bureau. There are in the Blue Book of 1867 over four hun-

INDIAN AFFAIRS. 371

dred names — and I am informed that the number has been
increased during the past year, so that it is now perhaps six
hundred — of civil officers, employees in that bureau, whose
aggregate annual salaries amount to nearly half a million dol-
lars. I will not say in all, but in nearly all the branches of
that bureau, fraud ** creams and mantles," and is a stench in the
nostrils of all good men. Yet we are now compelled to refuse
to meet our treaty stipulations, and to carry out the obliga-
tions of the government, or we must let $2,500,000 go pouring
through the filthy channels that are choking with the accu-
mulated crimes and corruptions of half a century.

I repeat that I make no personal charges against the officers
at the head of the Indian Bureau. The primary fault is in the
system itself. The very nature of the service is such that it
destroys responsibility and has not the usual restraints of civili-
zation which hold bad men in check, and it allows the basest
passions of human nature to effloresce and to exhibit their foul-
est characteristics. I do not indorse the doctrine of total de-
pravity, nor will I assert that man is always corrupt whenever
he has a fair opportunity to escape detection ; but it is true that
opportunity is the door through which corruption always enters,
and this Indian Bureau is full of doors that are all ajar. As
carrion attracts crows, so this bureau attracts to itself all forms
of official baseness. Its agents, charged with important dis-
cretionary duties and with the disbursement of vast sums of
public money, transacting their business hundreds of miles be-
yond the pale of civilization, beyond the jurisdiction of the civil
courts and the restraining influence of military discipline, find
but little difficulty in making the ignorant Indian the victim of
their rapacity. It is a part of history that these agents, for
purposes of gain, foment Indian wars, to end which our army
must bleed and our people be taxed. The cost of our Indian
war last year alone would feed every Indian in the United States
five years. And yet we are not permitted by the supporters of
this Indian Bureau to link to this expenditure of money that
measure of reform which, for more than two years, has been
urged by an overwhelming majority of the members of this
House.

This brings us back, Mr. Speaker, to the question with which
I began my remarks. Under the circumstances, shall we pay
the money at all ? I speak only for myself, but I am resolved

372 INDIAN AFFAIRS.

that I will not now, nor ever again, vote for an appropriation
of money to be expended through the Indian Bureau as at
present organized. On my responsibility as a member of this
House, I shall now and henceforward vote in the negative
on the final passage of every Indian bill for the appropriation
of money, until the channels of that expenditure be cleaned
and the whole service purified. As a protest against the pres-
ent system and its treatment by Congress, I exhort members of
the House of Representatives now to declare, in the only man-
ner left open to us under the rules of the House, that not one
dollar more shall be expended in the Indian service until the
bureau is purified and reformed.

February 27, 1869, the House being in Committee of the Whole to
consider the Senate amendments to the Indian Appropriation Bill, Mr.
Garfield made these remarks: —

Mr. Chairman, — I desire to call the attention of this Com-
mittee of the Whole to some of the startling facts developed in
the bill now under consideration. I have aggregated the figures
as furnished by the Committee on Appropriations, and I call
special attention to them.

At the commencement of this session, the Secretary of the
Interior, with all the Indian treaties then in existence before him,
sent in his estimates for appropriations for Indian purposes.
The total amount of appropriations asked for was $2,977,982,
or $22,018 less than $3,000,000. The Committee on Appro-
priations and the House of Representatives went over the
whole subject and cut down the amount of the estimates about
$650,000, so that the bill, as it passed the House, granted
$2,312,000 for Indian purposes. Now, what has happened?
The Senate sends the bill back to us with an addition of
$4,341,897. In other words, the total appropriations for In-
dian purposes, according to the amended bill, are $6,654,000;
whereas less than $3,000,000 was asked for by the Secretary
of the Interior, and less than $2,313,000 was voted by the
House in the bill which we sent to the Senate.

Now I call the attention of members to this startling fact,
that the bill before us appropriates more than twice as much
money as the Secretary of the Interior ever asked us to give

INDIAN AFFAIRS. 373

him for Indian purposes, and nearly three times as much as we
granted. And on what grounds ? Why, we are told that trea-
ties have been made with the Indians. When? A bundle of
these treaties is before us, and I have not yet found one that
bears a date later than August, 1868. There may be later
treaties, but I have not seen them. All the provisions of these
treaties were known to the Secretary of the Interior long before
the commencement of this session of Congress. Has anything
new transpired since we debated this bill in the House a few
weeks ago? Have any new necessities arisen? **The treaties,"
it is said. But these treaties are old, and since they were made
events have occurred in the Indian country which make them
an offence to the American people. What are they? I have
examined them hastily, but I am authorized by that exami-
nation to say, that nearly one half of all the Indians whom the
Senate proposes now to feed and clothe under these sacred
treaties of which gentlemen talk, have made war upon us since
the treaties were made, and have thus broken the last thread of
binding authority that the treaties possessed. I have here a
long list of the names of tribes with whom we have been fight-
ing. It is now proposed, without peace being made, without
reconciliation, to pay the treasure of the United States into the
hands of these warriors who fight us in summer and ask us to
feed them in winter.

Mr. Wintdom. Before the gentleman leaves the point to which he
has just referred, I wish to ask him whether he asks this House to
believe that all the Indians with whom treaties have been made are at
war with us ?

I said nearly one half

Mr. Windom. Will the gentleman inform the House what tribes
with which we have made treaties are now at war with us?

I will name some of them. The Southern band of Cheyennes
and Arapahoes, the bands of the Ogallalla and Brul^ Sioux, led
by chiefs whose names are beyond the range of my vocabulary.

I hold in my hand one of these treaties as a specimen of the
lot. It is a treaty with the Northern Cheyennes and Northern
Arapahoes, both of which tribes we have been fighting because
they began war upon us ; and they are fighting to-day, I be-
lieve. I want to call attention to the provisions of this treaty.
According to the sixth article we are bound for the next thirty

^ INDIAN AFFAIRS.

. ... X JO hunt up every male Indian of the age of fourteen years,
...^; :ivui ihac time forvrard for thirty years, and in September
.\ .a<a vcoi' wc must deliver to him — what will be a mysterious
-vhiU lv> luoiiy of them — a coat, a hat, a pair of pantaloons, a
t;*uuwL &hirt» and a pair of woollen socks. If we are fortunate
xUv'u^h to catch this wild man of the desert, and can get these
sUUVi'lcd of clothing upon htm, we shall then have performed
ttuc i>art of our treaty stipulations. But at any rate the articles
«uv to be purchased and sent out there ; and the estimates of
ihcir co^t, etc., must be made up by the Commissioner of Indian
Attairii. But more than that: we are not to satisfy ourselves
with hunting Indian boys; a chase must also be made after the
taiicr ^&ex of that dusky race. Whenever an Indian girl reaches
the age of twelve years, the paternal government, through this
Indian Bureau, is to seek her out, and deliver over, for her sole
u^c and benefit, the following-named articles : a flannel skirt or
the goods necessary to make it, a pair of woollen hose, twelve
yards of calico, and twelve yards of cotton domestic. And
then, for the boys and girls under the ages named, we are to
furnish such flannel and cotton goods as may be needed to make
each a suit as aforesaid, together with a pair of woollen socks
ti>i- each. "And in order that the Commissioner of Indian
AtVairs may be able to estimate properly for the articles herein
named , it shall be the duty of the agent each year to forward
him a full and exact census of the Indians, on which the esti-
mates from year to year can be made."

Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts. With the gentleman's permission I
woukl state a single fact. There is no evidence of any census having
yet been taken on which these appropriations are made, except of one
tribe.

We think ourselves happy if we can have a census of the
white men of this country taken once in ten years ; but under
these treaties we are compelled to take a census of these Indian
tribes every year as the basis upon which these estimates are to
be made. Now, in the letter which I presented a few weeks
a^o in reference to a census of the Indian tribes, it is stated by
the writer, an officer of high standing, that some tribes of In-
dians in the Washita country had been estimated for and by the
tjovcrnmcnt as numbering from six to eight thousand, when
from his own knowledge they have never reached in any one

INDIAN AFFAIRS. 375

year a higher number than twenty-five hundred. That is the
way the Indian census is likely to be taken. A gentleman near
me states that but one census of but one tribe of Indians has
ever yet been properly taken.

But this is not all. When you have caught these Indians and
put trousers upon them, have given them each twelve yards
of domestic, and made all the other comfortable arrangements
contemplated in the treaties, you have not yet completed
your work. The sixth article goes on to declare that, in addi-
tion to the clothing herein named, the sum of ten dollars shall
be appropriated annually for any Indian who may be ** roam-
ing." If these gay savages of the Western plains shall see fit
to go " roaming," they are to have ten dollars each in addition
to the articles before mentioned. If you can catch him he is
still to have ten dollars for roaming. If any of them shall con-
clude " no longer to roam," but to settle down somewhere
and devote themselves to Georgics and Bucolics, they shall have
twenty dollars each for thirty years to come.

Why, say these gentlemen, treaties are sacred and must be
respected ! A large number of gentlemen were unwilling to
recognize the Alaska treaty after it had been solemnly rati-
fied by the Senate. They did not hold themselves bound by
the treaty. Some of us, on the contrary, felt a moral obliga-
tion to pay the money in view of the fact that we had treated
with a great and friendly power, although we did it with much
reluctance. Many of the same men who were vehement in
their denunciation of the Alaska treaty, and who stood by the
Treasury with heroic virtue, now shudder with horror at the
idea of breaking faith with these Indians. If there is anything
in our policy more absurd than the rest, it is the solemn farce
of entering into treaty stipulations with these roving bands of
savage Indians, and treating them as nations, — the majesty of
this republic stooping to send out ambassadors to sit in council
with painted savages, our wards, and make solemn treaties with
them, as though we were treating with sovereign nations ! That
is the feast to which we are invited. This new batch of treaties
is brought in, and we are asked to bind ourselves to make
heavy appropriations for thirty years to come.

Then we have thrown in appropriations for old State claims,
as if for the purpose of catching votes. Here is a provision
for the payment of a little claim to the State of Iowa: '* To

376 INDIAN AFFAIRS.

supply deficiency of appropriation to pay for depredations
committed by Indians in Northwestern Iowa in the year 1857,
$10,906.34." But this does not say to whom it is to be paid.
It appears to be a little sop thrown to Iowa, and of course it is
expected that the delegation from Iowa will defend the claims
of their State. I have no fear that they will be caught by this
device. I find on the next ps^e a nice little sop to the State
of Minnesota. In addition to the $117,000 paid to that State,
the provisions of the Deficiency Bill of 1863 are to be extended
to cover $12,000 more to be paid out under an act entitled
"An Act to amend an Act/' etc. to appropriate something
passed six or seven years ago. If anybody understands from
the reading of it what all that means, let him explain it It
evidently is designed to cover something under its verbiage.
Such is the nice little intimation to the patriotic members from
Minnesota that they must stand by their State. How many
other sops like these can be found scattered through the bill, I
do not know.

We are invited to do a patriotic work in the hundred and
seventy-fourth amendment, where we are called upon to pay
five thousand dollars for the distribution of medals bearing the
portrait of General Grant. I suppose this is intended to touch
the hearts of the military members of the House. How ex-
ceedingly grateful they should be for this opportunity to per-
petuate in bronze the face of the President of the United
States! On the seventy- fourth page is this item: "Three
thousand seven hundred dollars, being a balance of interest at
five per cent per month on $39,950, held by the United States,
July, 1857, invested in Kansas bonds in December, 1861." My
friend from Kansas ^ may perhaps become a convert to this
modest interest account.

A Member. Do I understand the gentleman to say five per cent per
month?

Yes, sir ; that is the rate of interest, sixty per cent per an-
num, — a call upon the shy State of Kansas for her vote in
carrying this bill through the House.

I congratulate myself on one thing. When this bill passed
the House, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was my
duty to vote against it even in the modest form it then assumed ;

^ Mr. Clarke.

INDIAN AFFAIRS. 377

and I then declared I would not vote to send another dollar of
public money through the channels of the Indian Bureau. I
am glad I took the ground I did ; I am confirmed in the wisdom
of that determination by the exhibition we have seen to-night
of the character of the amendments to this bill ; and unless
gentlemen can show us how it is that we are to pay $3,000,000
more than we were asked to pay by the officers in charge of
this bureau, I shall vote to lay the bill and the amendments on
the table.

On the 25 th of January, 18 71, pending the Indian Appropriation
Bill, Mr. Grarfield made these remarks : —

Mr. Chairman, — I rise to oppose the amendment I
so thoroughly agree with the main part of the speech of the
gentleman from Kentucky ^ that my opposition to his amend-
ment is only pro format and for the sake of submitting a few
remarks.

While it is true that every step toward a mild treatment of
the Indian tribes has resulted not only in less barbarism among
them, but also in much less expense to the United States, I be-
lieve we shall ultimately find one other step necessary. We
shall find that the ballot rather than the bullet will be the ulti-
mate settlement of the Indian question. Whenever we shall be
able to erect a Territory in which the Indians who are willing
to be civilized may enjoy a territorial form of government and
exercise the ballot, — when they shall be represented here by
their Delegate, with the hope that on their attaining the proper
condition of industry and intelligence they will be admitted as
a State, — wc shall present to all the Indians of the West the
alternative of going on in their decline to ultimate extinction, or
of joining the movement in the other direction towards civiliza-
tion. That movement will find its culmination in the autonomy
of a State in which civilized Indians shall be citizens, governing
themselves by means of the ballot, and taking into their own
hands the direction of their destiny. I believe we shall find
ultimately that, as the ballot was the salvatfon of the negro race
lately enslaved, so will it be the salvation of such of the Indian
race as may be saved from barbarism and extinction.

1 Mr. Beck.

INDIAN AFFAIRS.

. ^^io >> Other gentlemen, Mr. Garfield continued : — ]

.. , >.^4iuau» I have only two things to say. The gentle-
* i..u >ia>;»achusetts ^ and the gentleman from Tennessee^
.^^.^uuAC chat> in the few remarks I made a moment ago,
.... :i favor of giving the ballot immediately to the Indians as
. ,.< oi all these ills. I do not believe the wild Indian can
.;^ .w DoUot at the present moment any better than he can use
.i*N, >t^»v' Jiu^-book. On the contrary, I mean, when I say that the
.\,*XN ■* the ultimate solution of the question, that, if we first
>^^ :iKsc Indians on reservations, if we give them the right to
V^<i yf^P*^*^/ "^ severalty, if we lead them up by degrees, we
sAo^l tind by and by that, at the top of a slowly ascending scale,
»^y will have the ballot and a distinct self-government, which
^ill be the final solution of the problem. I did not mean to im-
i>Iy that this result would be reached in a day or a year. That
education is a step toward the ballot, no one can doubt. If we
aiKiIyzc free institutions it will be found that the ballot and
e^,lucation are as inseparable as union and liberty, and any man
who divorces them will destroy the structure of our government.
lUit there is one other thing which I wish to say in this con-
mvlion. Gentlemen have spoken of the difficulties we have
had with the wild Indians of the West, and of the horrible mas-
SwUK's perpetrated upon our frontier settlements; and the gen-
tleman from Texas attempted to paint in a Preraphaelite style
svuuo of the extreme cases of suffering which had come under
his notice. I wish to call the attention of the House to this
historical fact, — that north of us, in the British possessions, and
over our southern border, in Mexico, beyond our influence,
there have been no Indian wars. There never was an Indian
massacre in the British and Russian possessions north of us.
There has been no Indian massacre even under Mexican rule.
()nly here in our American belt, in our United States alone,
have there been Indian massacres. And why? Because we
have pursued the powder and bullet plan of the gentleman
from Nevada, and because we have gone out to them with fire
and sword.

Mr. Degener. I ask the gentleman to yield to me for one moment.

The result has been that we have had murder and rapine and
all the horrors of Indian slaughter.

^ Mr. Dawes. 2 \fr Prosser.

INDIAN AFFAIRS. 379

Mr. Benjamin rose.

I see all the warlike gentlemen on their feet. I see them
springing up all around me, like warriors from the ambush
ready for fight ; and the spirit of their remarks makes me feel
as though I should have to dodge a hatchet for the sentiments
I have uttered. They have the field, for my time has expired.

April 20, 1876, the House being in Committee of the Whole to
consider the bill to transfer the bureau of Indian Affairs from the Interior
to the War Department, Mr. Garfield made these remarks ; —

Mr. Chairman, — In the year 1867 the Committee on Mili-
tary Affairs, of which I was a member, reported a bill that
passed this House making the transfer which is now proposed.
In 1868, in the following Congress I believe, I was myself
charged with the duty of reporting a bill which made the trans-
fer of Indian affairs to the War Department. The grounds of
our action at that time were very clear, and one of them has
troubled me a good deal. As an original proposition, I am dis-
posed to believe that, if this transfer was made, we could by
court-martial punish frauds upon the Indians, and in the use of
money for Indian affairs, more thoroughly and successfully than
we can through any civil establishment. That point I am bound
to believe is on general principles correct.

But the main ground in favor of the transfer in 1868 was this.
We were then pursuing what may be called a war policy towards
the Indians ; wc were having more Indian war than Indian peace ;
we were obliged to have recourse to the army in order to manage
the Indians successfully; and the mixture of military and civil
management was about as bad a system as there could be. The
army destroyed the Indians, and the civil department took care
of them and paid them money. I then became satisfied, and
so said in a speech which I have here in the Globe, that the
whole civil part of our Indian service was as rotten and corrupt
as corruption could well be, and that we must cut out the can-
cer if we could not otherwise remove it. I went so far as to
vote against the Indian Appropriation Bill, declaring that, while
such a policy continued, I would never vote another dollar of
public money to be expended through that old channel.

38o INDIAN AFFAIRS.

There was another consideration. We were then making
treaties with the Indians all through the West; we were calling
those savage tribes " nations," and making treaties with them as
though two nations were sitting in council. All that seemed to
be bad.

We passed a bill through the House by a large vote, making
the proposed transfer. It went to the Senate, and while it was
pending there, while we were expecting it would soon become
a law, the Piegan massacre occurred, which shocked the sen-
sibilities of the whole nation. The Senate immediately dropped
the bill, and of course it failed to become a law. Shortly after-
ward General Grant was inaugurated, and with his inaugura-
tion, or very soon afterward, began what is known as the peace
policy. Congress followed his lead, and agreed that there
should be no further general treaties made with the Indians as
tribes, but that, co-operating with the churches of the country,
a policy of conciliation, of civilization, and, if possible, of Chris-
tianization, should be adopted, instead of the old, wretched pol-
icy of mixed war and peace which we had pursued for years.
I was somewhat in doubt about the wisdom of the peace policy.
I studied the question with a good deal of care. We had, un-
der this new policy, and very early in its administration, one
Commissioner who certainly did credit to the country and the
service. I refer, of course, to General Walker. Under his able,
wise, and honest management we saw the Indian Bureau very
largely rescued from the slough into which it had fallen. And
we have now a Commissioner^ who is pursuing the same gen-
eral line of policy, ably and honestly, I believe, that was pur-
sued by General Walker. We have now had five full years
of the peace policy, and a large share of all the wild, roaming
Indians of 1868 are now peacefully employed in taking the first
steps toward civilization. If the reports of this bureau are to
be credited, and the reports of the Peace Commissioners as well,
a great step has been taken in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I have stated the Indian problem as it now
exists. There are two facts which show the management of
our Indian affairs to be a great deal less expensive now than
before. In the first place, while we appropriate more money to
be expended through the Indian Bureau than before, we appro-
priate less to be expended through the War Department for

1 Mr. J. Q. Smith, of Ohio.

INDIAN AFFAIRS. 381

fighting the Indians, — far less than we did before ; and there-
fore, on the score of economy, we are certainly paying less
money out of the Treasury than under the old policy. That is
the first fact. But, secondly, it is claimed by those who have
looked carefullyinto the subject, that a great and worthy pro-
gress has been made in the direction of civilizing and Christian-
izing these Indians. I am not here to say I believe very strongly
in the ultimate success of making good citizens of the Indians.
I wish it could be done. It is our duty to see the peace policy
fairly tried. Now, in the midst of the trial, I do not think we
should abandon it by turning the whole business over to a new
set of people, with new motives and new opinions on the sub-
ject. After we have fairly tried it, if it proves to be a failure, I
will then favor transferring the bureau to the War Department ;
but I believe a fair, honest trial of the peace policy of the Presi-
dent ought first to be had.

The circumstances under which I advocated the transfer were
entirely different from those now existing. The argument
which I used then was an argument based on entirely different
facts from those which now exist. I hold we ought not now
to change our policy when the conditions are so different from
what they were in 1868. I admit there is a great deal to be
said on both sides of this question ; I admit that since this de-
bate began I have wavered in my own mind as to how I
should act; but it is not in the remotest degree on account of
party feeling that I take the position I do to-day. I would as
cheerfully vote, and when this debate began I was inclined to
vote, with my friends over the way; but the debate has dis-
closed a greater progress toward civilization on the part of the
Indian as the fruit of the peace policy than I supposed the facts
warranted us in believing; and on that ground, and on that
ground alone, I insist we should not now, until the peace policy
has had full time to develop whether it is good or bad, wise
or unwise, abandon the plan inaugurated by the government.

Mr. Banning. I wish to ask the gentleman if it was not after the
Piegan massacre, and after the Senate had defeated the bill in 1868,
that the President of the United States recommended army control of
the Indians?

I think General Grant, whether he was President then or not,
recommended the transfer later than the Piegan massacre ; but
I remember that the House and the Senate and the country

382 INDIAN AFFAIRS.

were shocked at that massacre, and we regarded it at that time
as the breaking down of the bill. I do not say that was a*
reason why the bill should not have passed, for I was in favor
of the bill for some time after the Piegan massacre; and I
would still be in favor of it if we had now tlie old semi-civil,
semi-military policy that brought war to the country and de-
struction to the Indian.

Mr. Steele. WiH the gentleman say that the same mixed S3rstem of
civil and military authority that existed in 1868 does not exist to-day at
every one of these agencies ?

I am told not. I hold in my hand the report of the Commis-
sioner of Indian Affairs on that very subject, in which he says
they have now so far subordinated the wild tribes to the man-
agement of the agencies, that only in two principal districts
is there any serious necessity for the presence of the army to
keep them in peace. In the whole Indian Territory, the whole
of California, the whole of Utah, almost all of New Mexico, —
the larger part of our territory where the Indians are now found,
— we do not need the army, and there is no prospect of its
being necessary to exercise force. But up in the wild Sioux
country, and perhaps in one other district, we still need the pres-
ence of troops to prevent threatened outbreaks. So I think my
answer to my friend is complete, that the difference is very
great between now and then.

COMMISSIONER WELLS'S REPORT.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 19, 1869.

The following remarks were made pending this resolution : " Resolved y
That twenty thousand copies of the Report of the Special Commissioner
of the Revenue, with appendices complete, be printed for the use of the
House, and one thousand bound copies of the same, for the use of
the Treasury Department."

MR. SPEAKER, — I confess my great surprise at the oppo-
sition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania ^ to the print-
ing of this report of the Special Commissioner of the Revenue.
I think, if the gentleman is really in earnest about it, he has
made a most damaging admission. We have an officer ap-
pointed to examine and report to us facts and recommenda-
tions in regard to our financial condition. The Commissioner's
annual report is before us, and the gentleman does not wish it
printed. He admits, in the first place, that the facts stated are
generally correct, — that the statistics collected and arranged in
tables are true and correctly stated ; but declares that the mar-
shalling of the facts is dangerous, — that they are put together in
such a way, and such inferences are drawn from them, that the
report is dangerous to Congress, and to the enlightened people
of the country. The gentleman asks this House to make a hu-
miliating confession, in which I, for one, am not ready to join.
If any theories or opinions of mine can be damaged by facts, so
much the worse for my theories. It seems to me that the gen-
tleman gives away his case, abandons his ground of attack, when
he starts out by admitting the general correctness of the figures.
What, then, is the fault he finds with the Commissioner? If
the things stated are facts, what is the matter? Why, the gen-

1 Mr. Kellev.

384 COMMISSIONER WELLSS REPORT

tlcinan*s grievance is contained in a single paragraph of the
report found on page 15. As the result of the facts collected
from a very wide range of observation, the Commissioner con-
cludes that the cost of living, the food, clothing, shelter, light,
and fuel of families, in this country, was about seventy-eight
per cent higher in 1868 than it was in 1860-61, the year before
the war ; while the average wages of the unskilled laborer are
but fifty per cent higher, and' of the skilled laborer but sixty
per cent higher. These are the two deductions drawn by the
Special Commissioner from the great mass of facts and figures
brought under his observation; and hence he concludes that
the laboring man can lay up less of his earnings at the end of
the year now than he could in 1 860.

The Commissioner has also shown that the wealth in the
hands of the capitalists of the country is rapidly increasing.
This does not provoke an attack from the gentleman ; he either
does not deny it, or is glad to have it proved ; but he is unwill-
ing to have it shown that labor is not reaping its full share of
the increasing wealth of the country. Has the gentleman im-
peached the correctness of the Commissioner's facts ? Not at
all. He even admits them. It must be, then, that he refuses to
print this report because its facts and deductions do not square
with his theories and notions. I call the gentleman's attention
to the tables.

Here are twenty-five pages of the Appendix to the report,
just from the press, wholly devoted to the very sybjcct of the
gentleman's complaint. Appendix D is a series of tables ex-
hibiting the comparative cost of provisions, clothing, rent, and
all that makes up the cost of living, in the years i860 and 1868.
These prices were taken from the cities and rural districts of
every State, beginning with Maine, and reaching to Ohio. I
wish the tables included the West also. Appendix E shows the
average wages of labor; and these tables are made up from
an equally wide range of observation. The various classes of
trades and labor are exhibited in the different States named,
and if the statements are incorrect, let them be met and ex-
ploded. Now, it becomes gentlemen who discredit the report
of the Commissioner to answer the facts set forth in these ta-
bles. I do not quarrel with these facts. I only regret that
the tables do not include statistics from Ohio, and the States
farther West.

COMMISSIONER WELLS'S REPORT. 385

Mr. Dawes. Does the gentleman mean to say that the Commissioner
is at fault in omitting the Western States ?

I do not. I only say I regret that these States were not in-
cluded. Now, sir, this result reached by the Commissioner is
no new thing. In 1866, the Commissioner reported that from
i860 to 1866 wages had risen sixty per cent, and the cost of
living ninety per cent. Why was not that fact challenged at
that time? The statement has been long enough before the
country to have been refuted long ago if it is not true.

Let me ask attention for a moment to some facts that I have
lately obtained. Hearing that this attack was to be made upon
the report, I have asked information from two sources, in order
to test the correctness of the Commissioner's position.

In the first place, we have in the army, in the price of rations,
a very good mode of testing the cost of living. The fullest
competition is allowed to bidders, and the price of the ration
is the result of this competition for supplying the army. I have
examined the records of the commissary department, and find
that the price of rations during the war confirms in a remarka-
ble manner the conclusions of the Commissioner. In the next
place, I hold in my hand a table that shows what we have been
paying to laborers employed in our public works ; and the price,
which is adjusted to the general market, sustains fully the con-
clusions of the Commissioner on that subject. In 1861, here in
Washington, we paid unskilled laborers $[.25 per day; we now
pay $1.75 per day, an increase of forty per cent. For skilled
labor the increase ranged from fifty-five to seventy-five per
cent. The following is an official statement of daily wages paid
in this city : —

^861. 1868. Incrcas«

Carpenters ^2.00 JS3-5o 75

Laborers 1.25 1.75 40

Stone-masons 2.50 4.00 60

0 Brick-masons 2.50 4.00 60

Machinists 2.00 3.00 50

Plumbers 2.25 3.50 55

Blacksmiths 2.00 3.00 50

We are building custom-houses and post-offices, and are im-
proving our rivers and harbors, all over the United States, and
our own official records, which were not carried into the Com-
missioner's table, so far as I have been able to examine them,

VOL. I. 2$

386 COMMISSIONER WELLS'S REPORT,

all verify the statistics of the Commissioner. I hold in my hand,
also, a copy of one of the New York leading papers, published
only a few days ago, in which the editor says : —

" There are few men in this tax-ridden country who are more familiar
with the cause, or who more clearly see the unfortunate tendency, of the
unnatural style of living which prevails at the present day than Mr.
David Wells, the Special Commissioner at Washington, from whose re-
port we have previously taken much that was interesting and instructive.
In his opinion, these are unhealthy times for individuals, and many of
us can heartily endorse that opinion. We are, to be sure, getting on an
average better pay than in other days, but how about our expenses?
Look at houses, coal, flour, butter, milk, eggs, wood, cloth, and leather,
they are no better than they were ten years ago, xior less plentiful, but
their cost is vasdy greater ; so much greater, in fact, that rents are pos-
itively extortionate, and the absolute necessaries of life beyond the reach
of thousands in this very city."

This is the opinion of a journalist who is speaking of affairs
in his own city, and speaking of his own knowledge.

But the gentleman from Philadelphia^ has given us a new and
remarkable revelation about the year i860. It is the first time
I have ever heard it said, by a responsible gentleman, that that
year was a disastrous one for the American people. The gen-
tleman stated — I wrote down his words — that 1860-61 was
the darkest period ever seen in this country; and he went on to
exhibit how hard it was for laboring men to find employment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I differ widely from the honorable gentle-
man. I remember very well that the distinguished chairman of
the Committee of Ways and Means,^ some three years ago,
referred to the year i860 as the most prosperous year which
this republic ever saw;. and he gave his reasons for the state-
ment. It was a year of plenty, of great increase. I remember,
moreover, that it was a year of light taxes. There was but one
other great people on the face of the globe so lightly taxed
as the American people. Now we are the most heavily taxed
people except one, perhaps, on the face of the globe ; and the
weight of nearly all our taxes falls at last on the laboring man.
This is an element which the gentleman seems to have omitted
from his calculations altogether.

The gentleman says that at the present time laborers are
doing better than in i860. I ask him, How many strikes there

1 Mr. Kelley. 2 Mr. J. S. Morrill.

COMMISSIONER WELLS'S REPORT. 387

were among laborers in 1860-61? Were there any at all?
And how many were there in 1868? Will the gentleman deny
that strikes exhibit an unsettled and unsatisfactory condition
of labor in its relations to capital? In our mines, in our mills
and furnaces, in our manufacturing establishments, are not the
laborers every day joining in strikes for higher wages, and say-
ing that they need them on account of the high price of provis-
ions, or that the capitalists get too large a share of the profits?
I want to say, in this connection, that I believe the condition of
the laboring man in the West is better than in the East. The
element of transportation does not enter so largely into his
cost of living. I confess that I was somewhat surprised at the
statistics of the Commissioner ; for if I had been asked, I should
have said the laboring men of my district were doing nearly
as well as they were doing in i860, and perhaps in some cases
better ; but still I cannot impeach the array of facts he has ex-
hibited. They refer to the eastern portion of the country, how-
ever, and the local conditions may be different there.

But let me advert for a moment to another point in the state-
ment of the gentleman. He speaks with triumph of the amount
that is now deposited by laboring men in savings banks, as com-
pared with i860. Why, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the
facts lead to a conclusion exactly the opposite of that which
the gentleman draws. What does it mean? It means that in
this country, and especially in the East, in the unsettled state of
our commerce and of our currency, men dare not invest their
little earnings in business, and they therefore put them into
savings banks, where they are lightly taxed, to await solid
values and steady times. In the West it is not generally so.
A man can buy land and improve it, and thus can work for
himself, and have his profits as well as his support while he is la-
boring. I think that will explain the reason why savings banks
are more patronized in the East than in the West.

The gentleman has referred to railroad iron and the vast
amount recently brought into this country. Sir, that is the
most natural thing in the world. During the war the build-
ing of railroads was almost wholly suspended. The work has
revived and greatly increased since the war, and in 1868 the
new roads were ready for their iron. Hence the unusual de-
mand and the large importation of rails to which the gentleman
refers. He must remember that railroad iron has the least pro-

388 COMMISSIONER WELLS'S REPORT.

tection of any form of iron. It bears a duty of but seventy per
cent, while the next higher grade of iron bears a duty of one
hundred and twenty-five per cent. Another fact: while speak-
ing of rolling-mills, I would ask the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania, and my friend from the Johnstown district,^ if they know
of any railroad-iron mill in this country that has not all the
business it can do? Do they know such a mill that has not
to-day more orders than it can fill? I say this to show that
even the heavy importations of English rails have not broken
down our manufacturers.

One word more. This is not the first time we have heard a
clamor against the Commissioner of the Revenue. I must ad-
vert for a moment to something that occurred about two years
ago. At that time the Commissioner recommended a reduction
of the tax on whiskey, and gave it as his opinion that thereby
the amount of revenue from that source would be increased. In
certain quarters a great clamor was raised against him, and I
remember very well that a circular was laid before the members
of the House charging the Commissioner with being in the in-
terest of the whiskey men. Now, what was the fact? After
wasting the revenues of this country in a fruitless and vain
attempt to collect a tax of t\vo dollars per gallon on whiskey,
the tax was reduced. And with what results? Everything
promises that the revenue from this source will this year reach
$40,000,000, while it never before has reached $30,000,000 a
year, even when the tax was two dollars. I have in my hand a
record of the collections in the Chicago district for a few months
of this year, showing that the amount of revenue from the pres-
ent rate of tax upon whiskey is greater than for the correspond-
ing months when the rate of tax was higher. It shows the
amounts of tax paid on whiskey under the sixty-five cent tax,
and under the two-dollar tax for the same months of 1867 and

1868: —

1867. 1868.

July 14,934 ^165,552

August 6,821 214,726

September 11,654 84,772

October 54,825 216,916

November 33,29 ^ 304,405

December 87,755 326,369

Total ^199,280 Ji,3i 2,740

1 Mr. Morrell.

«

COMMISSIONER WELLS'S REPORT. 389

The tax in 1867 was three times as large per gallon as in 1868,
and yet look at the respective receipts in the two years. On
the sixty-five cent tax the receipts are nearly seven times as
great as on the two-dollar tax!

An officer who has served the country so ably and faithfully
as the Special Commissioner of the Revenue deserves well of
Congress and the country. I trust the motion to print will
prevail.

V V k^

V. ISSUES OF 1868.

;■: -VKRED AT ORWELL, OHIO,
August 28, 1868.

, - A v'lllZIiNS, — This vast audience reminds me of

;. '. .. .^ v'lU'O which met mc on this same spot some four

.-, .i;kI which was addressed by Governor Tod^ and

L iv'iucmbcr at that time the Governor said that it was

.^, * \ v»no of the last campaigns in which he would find it

. ^ ^ . . I \ u» stay away from the old Democratic party ; that he

• ■>.\1 the Union party only for the purpose of putting

., • -.'.u' Krbclliun and restoring the Union; that he trusted

x . '. iiiuv another year had passed the great work would be

' vpli-lu'il, and that the Democratic party would renew the

, , v. .-.ii^u t)f other questions and other issues on which the
, •.■u' party cuuld agree. Jkit four years have passed by, and
xv-.i '.lill fuul the (jovernor battling for the samegreatcau.se,
iiwl manfully advocating the same great doctrines, — still plead-
M»i; and laboring for the success of the Union party. Governor
l\»d now makes another proj^hecy, — that he will yet be i)er-
milled to die in the bosom of the old party. But, fellow-
V ili/.ens, there are two objections to this prophec)'. In the first
place. I am sure that the people of Ohio object to his dying
altogether; but if that event cannot be prevented, then, in the
second place, so long as the Democratic parly maintains its
present character and position before the country, I am sure all
»;ootl men will object to his dying in its bosom, if die he must.
He represents one wing of the great Democratic party of former
da\-s, — the wing whose leader was Stephen A. Douglass, that
great statesman who, in the crisis of 1861, declared that, in view

^ Hon. David Tod, (Jovcrnor of Oliio from 1S62 to 1S64, who had just ad-
drcsbcd tlic RcpubliLan mass meeting at Orwell.

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868. 391

of the Rebellion then beginning, there could be but two parties
in this country, patriots and traitors. The Governor joined the
Union party, not for three years only, but for the war. The
war in which he enlisted is not yet ended. We are to-day
fighting the same battles, and endeavoring to maintain the same
doctrines and principles which were in issue four years ago.

I had supposed, fellow-citizens, that in the campaign of this
fall the Democratic party would permit the dead past to bury
its dead ; that we should be permitted to look forward, and not
backward ; that they would find their issues in the great ques-
tions of the day, not of the past, but of the present and the
future. I had supposed Democrats remembered that there had
been a war ; that the Rebellion had been crushed ; that slavery
had been abolished ; but it seems from their speeches and their
papers that they do not remember these things.

In conducting the present campaign, it will not be profitable
to discuss those questions upon which the Democratic party are
divided ; the only legitimate discussion on our part will be on
those questions where they are united, and where they antago-
nize us.

The party do not agree on any financial doctrine. They
are not all free-traders, neither are they all tariff men. Some
Democrats are in favor of the national banks, and others are in
favor of totally abolishing these banks. Those who follow the
lead of Mr. Pendleton arc in favor of paying the bonds in
greenbacks, and those who follow Horatio Seymour denounce
the greenback theory of Pendleton as fraudulent and wicked.
Some of the leaders are in favor of resuming specie payments ;
other leaders oppose this, and insist upon another deluge of
greenbacks. If it is said that Mr. Pendleton secured the plat-
form adopted by the New York Convention, it must be admitted
that those utterly opposed to his doctrines secured the nomi-
nation. I therefore affirm here to-day that the Democratic
party are not a unit on any leading financial question.

They were not even united in their choice of a Presidential
candidate. Seventeen different candidates disputed the honor
of the nomination. Many days and many ballots were required
to make the selection of a standard-bearer; and when the
choice was finally made, it was received very coldly in many
parts of the country. The party were far from being satisfied
with Mr. Seymour. But, fellow-citizens, there was one man

. ^- party were united.

. Mt measure was the

. letter. To that letter

viminally to Colonel Brod-
POLITIGAL ISS' . -v'cratic Convention at New
. -jt as an aspirant for the Vice-
SPEECH DEUVETS «- ■■"'I "^l" «l>e boldness charac-
...; '.iut convention that questions of
'V .. ,-.»■ currency, greenbacks, or bonds.
.; iaj-$(.in with the one great question of
>,K.:. '^'■^ affirmed, was the question of the
^^■jthem States. That issue he placed in
■pELLOW-' I ' jiiiij; that it overshadows all other issues

J. the aiidn.!'' ' ij^ Joclaration on this subject was not gen-

years ago. .L.il iK.inted. He not only declared that all

myself. I ,jjj ^f Congress are null and void, but he

pf''''''' ■ CISC of the Democratic party to overturn

occt- Q him no injustice, I quote from his letter.

^^'^ I „L_-.,' language: —

,., .'lu- way to restore the government and the Constitii-

- . > 'i-r the President elect to declare these acts null and

■'' V iM")' to undo its usurpation at the South, disperse the

V—' ^I'viTnments, allow the white people to reorganise their

.,.i;-s Lind elect Senators and Representati(-cs. The Hoiwe

, ^, ;. iims will contain a majority of Democrats from the North,

„ ,t .iilniit the Representatives elected by the white people of

^_^.,- .iiiil, with the co-operation of the President, it will not be

; i-iompel tlie Senate to submit once more to the obligations of

4 .•iitpi'I the army to undo the work of Congress in the South-
_. I •\i,avs! When did the Democratic party ever compel the
j,,i!\ ii> ilo anything in the war? Three quarters of a million of
; Vim'iT^itic rebels in our front attempted to compel the army,
tmt si!;nally failed. Thousands of Democrats behind us under-
i^.,.|< to compel our army to withdraw, and give up the war, but
ihi'ii compulsion did not succeed. In 1864 they declared the
«,»■ A failure, and demanded the withdrawal of the troops from
till" South. Kut Democrats neither in the front nor in the rear
wi-re ever able to compel the army to do anything, and it is too
' MtPheiBon's History of Kcconst ruction, p. 381.

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868. 393

late in the day now for Frank Blair, or any other Democrat, to
undertake to compel the army to undo the work accomplished

\' Congress in the way of reconstruction.
'■It lest I be charged with quoting only the utterance of a
; -ii: man, lest any one say this is only the doctrine of Frank
..:.iir, and not of the Democratic party, I will say that, on this
declaration, he received the nomination for Vice-President, and
received it by acclamation. It took a long time to get a candi-
date for President, but Blair was chosen on the first ballot, and
unanimously, because of this clause in his letter. He was
chosen to represent the spirit of that letter. When the party
came to the construction of their platform of principles, Wade
Hampton, of South Carolina, a general of the Rebel army, told
the Committee on Resolutions that the South asked one thing, —
that the principles set forth in Blair's letter should be made the
principles of the party ; and the Committee on Resolutions re-
ported the declaration which stands in the platform as the utter-
ance of the whole Democratic party, — that the Reconstruction
Acts, so called, of Congress, are usurpations, unconstitutional,
and revolutionary. So, then, the issue is made up. The doc-
trine of Frank Blair and Wade Hampton has become the doc-
trine of the great Democratic party. On that issue General
Blair declares that the battle is to be fought; that that issue
overshadows and overrides all other questions; that by the
side of it all others are mere trifles. Let me here say to the
Democracy, the Republican party accept your challenge ; we
are ready to meet you on your own chosen ground, and fight
the battle of this campaign.

I need not review all the reconstruction measures ; many of
the questions are already settled ; but I will briefly state, first,
the grounds on which both Democrats and Republicans agree,
and then the grounds of difference between them.

All parties agree that, when the Rebellion collapsed, in 1865,
the whole Confederate establishment fell into ruins; that all the
governments of the eleven Rebel States were utterly destroyed,
and that there was no oflficer left, from governor to constable,
whom the national government could or did recognize. All
power in all these States had been based upon the Confeder-
ate government, and when that exploded all governments fell
together. To prove this I need only quote Andrew Johnson,
after^^'ards the leader of the Democratic party. He declared.

394 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868.

in ] 865> that all civil government in the Rebel States was over*
turned and destroyed. On this question, then, both parties
agree. There is no issue here.

But, further, both parties agree that, after the disappearance
of State governments in the South, it became the duty of the
United States to guarantee to those States lately in rebellion a
republican form of government This was acknowledged to be
in accordance with the Conistitution. By the wisdom and fore-
thought of our fathers this important provision had been inserted
in the Constitution, and here had at last arisen a case for the
exercise of the power.

Thus far no difference of opinion had arisen between the two
parties. But at this point a very curious question arose. It was
this: ''Who is the United States?" While this question was
before the country, a hunible individual from Tennessee stepped
forward and said, " Gentlemen, I am the United States ; I will do
the work." Congress at the time was not in session, and could
not contest the pretensions of this gentleman who claimed to
be the United States, Mr. Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee. So
he went to work to construct republican governments for the
Rebel States. He first picked out certain men whom he ap-
pointed governors, putting one in each State. These governors
fixed up their State Constitutions, but with the solitary excep-
tion of Tennessee they were never submitted to the people at
all. When Congress met, Mr. Johnson came to the door with a
whole armful of documents, and said : " Gentlemen of Congress,
here are some States I have been making ; I .want you to take
them in. I have also," he said, "elected eighty men as represent-
atives of these States, whom I want you to admit as members
of your houses." We looked at Johnson, then at the repre-
sentatives, and then at the litter of States he brought us. We
looked at the workman, and then at his work, and said, " Mr.
Johnson, in the first place, you are not the United States ; and
in the second place, if you were, you have made a wretched
botch of your work." Congress looked at the eighty represent-
atives who were asking to come in, and they saw that, with
three or four exceptions, every man among them had blood
on his hands. With those exceptions, every man had cither
been a leader in the Rebel army, or had assisted in originating
the Rebellion and in carrying it on. We were asked by the
Democratic party and by Johnson to admit these unwashed,

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868. 395

unpardoned, unhung rebels, whose hands were still red with the
blood of your children, to seats in the national Congress, to
make laws for you and me, and for our children to come after
us. Congress refused to admit them. Congress said, " You
cannot come in here with your bloody hands to control the
affairs of this great nation."

The serious question then arose, Who has authority to build
up republican governments in these disorganized Rebel States?
On looking into our political history, we found the question
had been decided as long ago as 1842. Chief Justice Taney
then delivered a decision,^ in which he declared that, in any
case where the validity of a State government was called in
question, it was not the province of the Supreme Court, or of
the President, to decide, but that it was the sole province of the
law-making power. It was therefore clearly the duty of the
Congress of the United States, according to the Constitution,
to guarantee republican forms of government to the Rebel
States of the South. The work was a difficult one. We felt
this. We knew that, under the law providing for punishing
treason, passed by the First Congress, and approved by Wash-
ington, we might try, convict, and hang every Rebel in the
South ; but Congress determined to do nothing for vengeance.
A plan was therefore framed with the design of securing jus-
tice to all ; a plan to make all men equal before the law ; a
plan that would protect all in their rights, and secure the coun-
try against a rebellion in the future. We proposed to put into
the Constitution of the United States a provision allowing the
people of the South to exercise their discretion about granting
the black men the right to vote, but there was to be this con-
dition : if they would not grant the right, they should not vote
for them. Thus we proposed, to leave the question with them.
It was proposed to admit to political privileges all the Rebels
of the South, except those who had been leaders in the Re-
bellion. It was proposed that the Union debt should never be
repudiated, and that the Rebel debt should never be paid. It
was proposed that, when the States of the South should frame
constitutions on these principles, and adopt the Fourteenth
Amendment, they should be restored to all the advantages of
the Union.

This plan was submitted to the people in the campaign of 1866,

^ In Luther v. Borden ct al.^ 7 Howard, i.

396 POLITICAL ISSUES OF i863.

and it was approved by the most overwhelming majorities ever
given in the Congressional elections. Four fifths of the Union
members in the Fortieth Congress were elected on that issue.
It was submitted to the people of the South, and» one by one,
with the single exception of Tennessee, the Rebel States, under
the lead of Andrew Johnson, and by the consent and advice of
the Democratic party, rejected the Amendment, and flung it
back into our faces with contempt Under these circumstances
we were compelled to decide, either to surrender the whole
scheme, or to take severer measures. Congress then deter-
mined to take hold of those States with the strong arm of mili-
tary power, to keep the peace, and to redress the wrongs and
injuries of the Union people of the South, until the States
would come in on the basis of law. In rebuilding what had
been destroyed, we found it necessary to dig deeper. The
burned and charred timbers and broken foundations of the old
Rebel States were not fit material to work into the great temple
of liberty. We dug down to find the solid rock of loyalty, and
when we found it we discovered that it was variegated. There
was black as well as white marble.

We built at last upon the sure foundation of loyalty. We
had found that, whatever might be the color of a man's skin, if
he was a friend of the government, and not excluded by acts
of treason, he should be made a part of the great political
structure. On that broad basis Congress reconstructed the
South. Eight of the States have been admitted to representa-
tion in Congress, after their constitutions had been framed and
submitted to the people. Eight States have adopted the Four-
teenth Amendment. Three States have rejected the terms ; but
the Amendment has been fairly adopted. Even President John-
son has been compelled to announce that it is a part of the Con-
stitution of the United States. The Chief Justice has so declared.
So we come back to you now, fellow-citizens, to inform you
that the work with which you charged us two years ago has
been completed, except in the States of Virginia, Mississippi,
and Texas. It is a good thing when men respect laws and
constitutions ; but they do not always do so. When they fail
from better motives, there is a little piece of steel called a bay-
onet, which never fails to inspire respect, — more respect with
some men than law. In these three States we have left the
bayonet.

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868. 397

[At this point in the speech, a venerable Democrat in the centre of
the audience, who had been listening attentively, asked the speaker if he
proposed to adopt constitutional amendments by the bayonet.]

We propose this, my friend. If you persist in forming Ku-
Klux Klans in the South to murder Union men, white or black,
we propose to use the bayonet. If you will not learn to respect
the law through lessons of a milder nature, you must be in-
structed by cold steel. We propose to see the rights, liberties,
and lives of Union men, white and black, protected. This has
been the object of Congressional reconstruction from the be-
ginning to the end.

There is one other act that should be mentioned. We said
the Union debt should never be repudiated.

Now, the great issue with the Democratic party is this : Shall
all this work be undone? Frank P. Blair asks the whole country
to face about to the rear, and plunge again into the abyss of
war from which we have just been rescued. On the other hand,
General Grant, the great leader of the Republican party, says,
"Let us have peace." The face of the Democratic party is
turned to the rear, but that of the Union party to the front,
and its nature is to press forward. It is for you to say, fellow-
citizens, in which direction the country shall move.

I am no alarmist ; I do not desire to say a word to misrepre-
sent or exaggerate the situation ; but I am compelled to believe
that the Democratic platform and leaders mean war. Can any
one believe that the loyal white men in the South will tamely
submit to have all this work overturned? Can any one believe
that the three millions of black men lately endowed with politi-
cal rights will tamely submit to have those rights taken away
from them, and be crushed again? Can any man believe that
the great Republican party in the North, that have sacrificed so
much, will tamely submit to see all that the war has accom-
plished overturned and destroyed? I affirm it as my convic-
tion, that, if the Democratic party succeed in the election of a
President and Vice-President, all we have gained by the war
will be lost. The three hundred thousand men who have died
in the struggle will have died in vain. The three hundred thou-
sand who were crippled and maimed in the war will have suf-
fered in vain. All will be in vain, all will be lost, if the work
we have done is overturned. But elect General Grant, and four
years more will settle all these questions, and secure an hon-

398 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868.

orable peace. I refuse to believe that the people of this great
land desire to reopen the war. I know I can speak for the sol-
diers of the republic. We have seen blood enough. Not a
single man among them desires to re-enter the strife. It is
only the Democratic party, — that opposed the war, that re-
sisted every effort to raise men and money, that denounced
us as usurpers and Constitution-breakers, — it is only this Dem-
ocratic party, aided by the Rebels of the South, who now pro-
pose to renew the war. Such men as Wade Hampton, of South
Carolina, and General Forrest, of Memphis, leading members of
the New York Convention, are telling the people in the South
that there is now a chance to save at the ballot-box what they
lost in the field. This is the only issue in which the Rebels are
interested. I cannot believe, when the people of this country
understand the real facts, that they will permit such a scheme
to be successful.

All through this Northern country, the Democratic party are
careful to avoid the main issue of the campaign. They are
calling the attention of the people to questions of finance.
They arc charging the Republican party with reckless extrav-
agance and unnecessary expenditure of the public treasure,
and attempt by this means to divert your attention from the
real issues and purposes of the party to these incidental side
issues.

I will now, fcUow-citizcns, for a few moments, look into the
questions that are treated with so much concern and gravity by
Democratic speakers and presses. In order that I may exhibit
the character of the charges which that party makes against us,
I will read a sentence from the speech of Horatio Seymour at
Cooper Institute, in New York, a few days before he was nomi-
nated for President. He says: " Since the war closed, in 1865,
the government has spent, in addition to payments on principal
and interest, more than one thousand millions of dollars. Of this
sum, nearly eight hundred millions has been expended on the
army and navy, for military purposes, and all this expenditure
was made in time of peace." Now, there is nothing more sur-
prising than the fact that a man occupying the responsible and
respectable position that Governor Seymour is supposed to oc-
cupy should make such a statement as this. He would have you
believe that the Republican party has expended $800,000,000
on the army and navy in a time of profound peace, and within

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868. 399

a period of three years. I ask your careful and thoughtful
attention to this astonishing statement. Witness how a plain
tale shall put him down.

When the war closed with the surrender of Lee, in April,
1865, there were one million men on the muster-rolls of the
army ; there were fifty thousand sailors and nearly five hun-
dred vessels in the navy. There was due every soldier and
sailor at that time from one to six months' pay, and to nearly
every soldier there was due the bounty which had been prom-
ised him at the date of his enlistment, but which was not to be
paid until he was mustered out of the service. Within one
hundred and seventy-four days after the last victory of General
Grant over the Rebel army, there was paid out of the national
treasury $625,000,000 to the army and navy, in the way of
back pay and bounty. Every man of ordinary intelligence
must readily see that every dollar of this money was a part of
the expenses of the war, and was not, as Governor Seymour
asserts, part of the expense of the peace establishment. Gov-
ernor Seymour takes this $625,000,000, adds to it all the money
expended on the army and navy since, and, gravely setting it
all down to the credit of the peace establishment, holds it up as
an exhibition of the extravagance of the Republican party ! I
appeal to you, fellow-citizens, to say whether it is fair or honor-
able to make such a misrepresentation. There is a short and
very expressive Saxon word, which I might very properly apply
to the statement, but I forbear to use it. I will only say that
the statement is utterly untrue, and without the shadow of a
foundation.

Again,. it is charged by the leaders of the Democratic party
that the expenditures of Republican administration are enor-
mous, when compared with the expenditures of Democratic
administration. They tell us the expenses of the government
under Buchanan's administration amounted to only $90,000,000
per annum, while our annual expenditures now reach more than
$300,000,000. Permit mc here, fellow-citizens, to state briefly
the history of our expenditures.

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1865, the expenses of
the government amounted to $1,290,000,000; during the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1866, we reduced theni to $540,000,000,
less than one half the amount of the preceding year; during
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, they had been reduced to

«■

400 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868.

$420,0CX^,0CX^, and during the fiscal year which closed on the
30th of June last, our total expenses amounted to $371,000,000.
Thus our expenses in 1866 were only forty-two per cent, in
1867 only thirty-two per cent, and in 1868 only twenty-five per
cent of what they were in 1865. During this year, we have
every reason to believe a still further reduction will be reached.

Now, fellow-citizens, I desire to call your attention to the de-
tails of the expenditures of the last fiscal year. There was paid
into the Federal Treasury during that year $406,000,000. The
people of the United States placed in the hands of the govern-
ment that sum ; and for its proper disposition and economical
disbursement that government is responsible to them. As your
representative in the Congress of the United States, I am here
to-day to tell you what was done with your money. You have
the right to require of me a full and fair statement, as far as I
am able to give it.

One hundred and sixty-three and a half millions of dollars
was received from customs, — from duties on imported goods;
$193,000,000 from the internal revenue; $47,000,000 from mis-
cellaneous sources, such as the sale of war material ; nearly
$3,000,000 from the sale of public lands and the direct tax on
lands. Now, what was done with this money? You, the people,
have a right to ask. It would not be fair and just to charge all
the expenses arising out of the war to the ordinary expenses of
the government. I shall, therefore, classify the expenses into
extraordinary, or those growing out of the war, and ordinary,
or those required to maintain the government in time of peace.
The first of the extraordinary expenses was interest on the pub-
lic debt, amounting in all to $141,500,000. A large amount
of this was the interest on the compound-interest notes becom-
ing due, and which, once paid, cannot occur again. Next, we
paid in the way of pensions to disabled soldiers and to widows
and orphans of dead soldiers, $23,500,000. These are other
items: bounties due to soldiers during the war and not paid
before, $38,000,000; Freedmen's Bureau, $3,250,000; recon-
struction expenses, $1,750,000; reimbursing States for war ex-
penses, $10,250,000; for property lost and destroyed through
military operations, $5,000,000; subsistence for starving Indians
on the frontier, $1,000,000; for purchase and construction of
national cemeteries, $750,000; for commutation to persons
losing horses in the service, one sixth of a million ; making a

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868. 401

total over and above the ordinary expenses of the government,
of $225,000,000.

Now, when the Democratic party accuse us of extravagance,
let them say whether they would have refused to make any of
these expenditures. Let them say whether they would have re-
fused to pay the debts due the public creditors of the govern-
ment. Would they have refused to pay the pensions promised
the soldier who had .been crippled and disabled for life in the
service of his country? Would they have refused the poor
pittance allowed his impoverished widow or orphan? Would
they have refused food to the starving poor of the South, whites
and blacks? Would they have opposed appropriating money
for the purpose of picking up the scattered bones of our brave
boys who had fallen in the South, and depositing them in neat,
respectable cemeteries ? I call upon them to say whether they
would have refused any of these expenditures.

The expenditures of the government, during the last fiscal
year, not growing out of the war, amounted to $146,000,000,
and probably $10,000,000 of this sum was expended in sup-
.pressing Indian hostilities in the West This would reduce
the strictly ordinary expenses to $136,000,000. All this, how-
ever, was paid in paper, at a discount of from thirty to forty
per cent, while the expenditures under Buchanan, to which the
Democratic leaders so often allude in comparison with Repub-
lican expenditures, were all in gold. Reduce our ordinary
expenditures of last year to gold, and they would not exceed
$100,000,000. But it must also be taken into consideration
that when Buchanan was President we had less than thirty
millions of people; now we have nearly forty millions. We
had then only thirty-four States; now we have thirty-eight.
The expenses of a country must always increase in proportion
to the increase of population and of wealth. Considering the
increase in the number of States, in their population and wealth,
since the days of President Buchanan, I do not hesitate to affirm
that the expenditures of the last fiscal year were more economi-
cal than they were under the last Democratic administration.

But they talk of the public debt. No less a person than Rufus
P. Ranney, of Cleveland, in a speech at Painesville last Friday,
charged the Republican party with having increased the public
debt one hundred millions since the war, and I find the same
statement going the rounds of the Democratic papers of the

VOL. I. 26

402 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868.

country. Let me here make a statement from the record, — an
official statement of the Secretary of the Treasury. On the
30th of June, 1866, the public debt amounted to $2,783,000,000;
on the 30th of Jun^ 1868, it amounted to $2,510,000,000, show-
ing a decrease in two years of $273,000,000. During the last
year there was a surplus of $34,000,000 to apply on the princi-
pal of the public debt. That disposes of the charge that the
Republican party have increased the debt.

Again, the Democratic party complain of the heavy taxation
imposed on the country by Congress. Fellow-citizens, while
the war was in progress there were three words in my political
creed. They were all verbs implying action. They were
" tax," " fight,'* and " emancipate.*' Tax the people to support
the army and prosecute the war ; fight the Rebels to crush the
Rebellion ; emancipate the slaves, and realize the glorious doc-
trines of the Declaration of Independence. Congress did tax the
people : it laid heavy burdens upon them. But a brave, noble,
and generous people were willing to be taxed. They were will-
ing to bear the burdens and endure the hardships that the country
might live. During the war scarcely anything escaped taxation.
But since the war closed, the Republican party have reduced
taxation as rapidly as possible, or as rapidly as was safe for
the country. In 1866 taxation was reduced $60,000,000; in
1867, $40,000,000 more; and by the two acts of February 3,
and March 31, Congress at its last session reduced the taxation
$67,000,000 more ; making a total reduction of taxation during
the past two years of $1 67, ocx),ooo. The Democrats, however,
still insist that you are terribly burdened with taxation. I have
to-day received an official statement from the Internal Revenue
Collector of the Nineteenth Ohio District, showing how much
tax has been paid by the people of this district each year un-
der the internal revenue laws. I will state the amount. Dur-
ing the fiscal year ending June 30, 1866. they paid $587,000;
but so greatly have the taxes been reduced that in 1867 they
paid but $382,000; in 1868, they paid but $201,000; and by
the reductions made during the last session of Congress, the
internal revenue of this district for the next year will not ex-
ceed $150,000. There are nearly one hundred and fifty thou-
sand people in this Congressional district. Your internal reve-
nue tax will not average more than one dollar per head. Now,
fellow-citizens, I am not afraid that the loyal people of the

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868.

403

Nineteenth District will consider this too great a price to pay
for their country and its institutions.

Again, the Democratic party proclaim in their platform the
doctrine of equal taxation of all property according to its true
valuation. This proposition sounds well, but it is utterly delu-
sive. Consider it for a moment. Suppose all the real and per-
sonal property in this State were to be assessed according to its
value in the market, and taxed at a fixed rate per cent; farms
to be taxed at the same rate as manufactured articles, wheat at
the same rate as whiskey, potatoes at the same rate as tobac-
co, billiard-tables and wagons, billiard-cues and hoes, to be put
on an equality, — all articles of luxury, in a word, to be taxed
no more than articles of every-day necessity. Who will 'sup-
pose for a moment that such a system can be acceptable to a
free and intelligent people? No party has ever before pro-
posed such a tax system, and I think no party will ever dare
to carry out such doctrines in practice. It has long been an
established principle with financiers in this country to lay the
chief burdens of taxation on articles of luxury, and relieve
the necessaries of life.

But the resolution in th« Democratic platform to which I
allude was evidently designed to reach the bonds and the bond-
holders. Its authors intend by this resolution to declare them-
selves the friends of the people as against the bondholders, and
demand that all bonds shall be subject to equal taxation, by
State and national authority, with other property.

Now, fellow-citizens, I do not hesitate to say that every intel-
ligent Democrat knows that this part of the scheme which
proposes taxation of the bonds by State authority is utterly
impracticable. Every intelligent Democrat knows that the
Constitution of the United States forbids such taxation. It has
been eight times decided by the Supreme Court of the United
States that a State has no power to tax the securities of the
United States. It was so decided in 1819 by Chief Justice Mar-
shall. It was several times so decided by Chief Justice Taney.
It has been the almost unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court
for the last half-century; and within the last four years it has
been decided, not only that the State has no power to tax
bonds of the United States, but that Congress cannot, by legis-
lation, confer that right upon the States. If the Democratic
party are in earnest when they declare in favor of taxing the

404 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868.

bonds by State authority, why did not the Ohio legislature pass
such a law during their late session? It was, fellow-citizens,
for the simple reason that they knew such a law would be null
and void. The truth is, they have put this plank into their
platform to make capital with the people. They suggest a
falsehood which they dare not openly advocate.

But I may be asked, Why may not Congress tax the bonds
of the United States? Let us examine that question.

In the first place, there are $425,ooo,cxx) of bonds that form
the basis of the capital of the national banks. The shares of
these banks are taxed, both by State and national authority.
The total amount of taxes thus levied during the past year
amounted to $9,000,000 under State laws, and to $9,000,000
more under Federal laws. Thus the national banks paid
$18,000,000 taxes, — more than four per cent on the capital in-
vested. What other species of property bears so large a share
of the public burden? Would our agricultural and manufac-
turing interests quietly submit to that per cent of taxation? In
the next place, there are at least $600,000,000 of our bonds now
held in Europe. Are we ready to levy taxes on foreigners?
Are we ready to assume the right to tax the subjects of France,
of Great Britain, and of Germany? Are we ready to raise all
the questions of international law likely to arise from such a
policy? Are we ready to involve ourselves in a European war
in consequence of such a course? If we are not, wc should
pause before wc enter upon such a sweeping policy as that in-
dicated in the Democratic platform. Again, $150,000,000 of
the bonds are held by the savings banks of the country as the
best and safest method of securing their funds. These savings
banks, as you are aware, are the depositories of the small means
of laboring men, in sums ranging from fifty to five hundred
dollars. Is it wise statesmanship, nay, is it just, to levy a tax
on the earnings of this class of our community? Once more,
$175,000,000 of our bonds are held by the fire and life insur-
ance companies of the country. Is it desirable to levy a heavy
tax on these institutions, every dollar of which will be charged
to the people whose lives and property are insured against
disaster? Not less than $75,000,000 of bonds are held as
endowment funds by our colleges and institutions of learning,
and by benevolent institutions; and it lias always been the
policy of both the State and national governments to make the

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868. 405

taxation of such institutions as light as possible. A large
amount of the bonds are held by guardians and trustees for
orphans and minor children.

This exhibit shows that nearly three fourths of the bonds are
either beyond the reach of legitimate taxation, or are so invested
as to make a heavy and exceptional taxation impolitic.

Who hold the remainder of the bonds ? There seems to be
a general impression that a few capitalists of this country hold
the bonds. The Democratic press and speakers talk about
the ** bloated bondholders," the " aristocratic bondholders," etc.
From all I have been able to gather on this subject, I am satis-
fied that comparatively few of the bonds are held by capitalists.
I have in my possession a full list of those persons who hold
bonds in two great cities of the West, — Chicago and Cincinnati,
— and I observe but few capitalists among them. Such men
can make better use of their money. They invest in active,
speculative enterprises. The individual bondholders are men
of smaller means, — those who have not quite enough capital to
go into business, but who have a little money that they wish
to invest for future use, and who put it in bonds to save interest.
From the records of the Treasurer's Office in Washington I have
obtained a statement of the number of the different denomina-
tions of bonds now in existence, and I find that seventy per
cent of all the bonds are of the denomination of $1,000 or less;
only thirty per cent are of denominations of over $1,000, and
these large bonds are mostly held by the banks. Of those held
by individuals, more than seventy per cent — probably eighty
per cent — are in small denominations.

But, all these considerations aside, what will be gained by an
exceptional taxation of the bonds? Suppose the Cobb resolu-
tion ^ had become a law, and we had levied a tax equal to one
per cent on the interest of the bonds. In the first place, this
law would be a plain act of repudiation. It would reduce six
per cent bonds to five per cent bonds. A five per cent bond
is worth but 82^ per cent as much as a six per cent bond.
Therefore, by taxing the interest one cent on each dollar of the
principal, we reduce the value of the property in the hands of
the holder 16^ per cent. By taxing one cent on the dollar, it is
said we save to the treasury $13,000,000 annually. But if that
taxation should depreciate the market value of the bonds only

1 See antgy pp. 327-355.

4o6 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868.

one cent on the dollar, it would take away from the holders
$2 1 ,ocx),ocx) ; that is, in putting $13,000,000 into the treasury,
it would take $21,000,000 out of the pockets of the people.

Now, fellow-citizens, in opposition to all this wretched trickery
in finance, I turn with pride and satisfaction to the noble declara-
tion of the Chicago Convention, that the best method of lighten-
ing the burdens of taxation is to improve our credit, so that
capitalists will seek to lend us money at a lower rate of inter-
est. The average rate of interest throughout Europe is not
more than three per cent. We are paying six per cent in gold
for all the money that foreigners have loaned us. They buy
our bonds at seventy cents on the dollar, and we pay them six
cents on each seventy cents they loan us. We pay them five
and a half per cent more than they obtain from their European
customers. This additional sum is not interest, it is insurance.
It is the guaranty which we pay them against their being cheated
by repudiation. Every time we pay a million of dollars for in-
terest, we pay more than a million as security to these people
that we will not cheat them. If our credit was perfectly good, all
this additional price for security would be saved to the treasury.
Suppose, too, our credit was as good as a nation as that of Mas-
sachusetts is as a State. That little State, through all the darkest
days of the war, kept her financial matters in such a condition
that, when other States were paying their interest in paper, she
paid her creditors, not only according to the letter, but the spirit
of her contract. And now witness the result. She negotiated a
sterling loan in London, a few months ago, at so great a pre-
mium that the interest amounted to but little over three per
cent. Her ?iWQ. per cent bonds are to-day worth twenty-one
cents on the dollar more than the five per cent gold-bearing
bonds of the United States. These things can be explained
only on the ground that, in the State of Massachusetts, there
are not enough Democrats to get up a respectable effort at repu-
diation. Could we to-day fund our whole debt on the credit of
Massachusetts, we could save four hundred millions of dollars
more than by funding it on our own credit. It has been the
policy of the Republican party to fund the debt at a lower rate
of interest. The funding bill passed by Congress about the
close of its last session proposes to obtain loans at four and a
half per cent. President Johnson refused his signature to the
bill, but a similar one will be passed at the next session of

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1868. 407

Congress, Unless the credit of the country is destroyed by the
success of the Democratic party or the folly of our own party,
we may expect to reduce the whole amount of interest on our
public debt at least one third.

Thus, fellow-citizens, may we illustrate the old adage, that
honesty is the best policy. For myself, I have long since chosen
my course. I prize highly the great confidence and support the
people of the Nineteenth District have given me. These are the
people who so long sustained Joshua R. Giddings in his struggle
for the liberty of all the people. They will not now, I believe,
be willing to lower the high standard of morality that has ever
characterized them, and become rcpudiators of the national ob-
ligations. But if they do, I should consider myself dishonored
by accepting or continuing to hold office on any such terms.
Let us maintain the good name and honor of the nation. Its
life was saved by the valor of our army and the fidelity of our
people. Let us maintain its good name by keeping our engage-
merits with honesty and promptness. In a few years another
generation will be here with its seventy-five millions of people,
and its sixty billions of wealth. Our population is increasing
at the rate of more than three per cent per annum, while our
wealth increases at the rate of ten per cent per annum. Twenty
years from now the debt will be a light burden to a great, and
powerful, and wealthy nation ; and our children will pay the last
bond with the same affectionate reverence that they will pay
the last pension of the last survivor of the great war for the
Union.

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

February 9, 1869.

In the Fortieth Congress, Mr. Garfield held the chairmanship of the
Committee on Military Affairs, On the 9th of July, 1868, he reported
from that committee a bill to reduce and fix the military peace establish-
ment, which was debated from time to time, but on which no final action
was had. At the next session he said, " It was a well prepared, well con-
sidered bill, but it did not seem to meet at all the views of some mem-
bers of the House, and it was therefore overloaded with amendments of
such a character that finally the House was entirely unwilling to act upon it
in its amended condition. Hence," he continued, " following the lead of
others who desired to cut the army to pieces rather than to make what
seems to me to be a reasonable reduction, nothing was done last session."
February 5, 1869, he obtained permission of the House to report from his
committee an amendment to the Army Appropriation Bill, then pending.
The next day he reported the amendment, which was in substance his
bill of the previous session. On the 9th of the same month, the House
' being in Committee of tlie Whole on the Army Appropriation Bill, he
iliscussed the subject of army reduction and organization in the speech
following. On the 26th of February, he laid before the House the testi-
mony of army officers, to which he several times refers in his speech,
accompanied by a brief report.

The main features of the bill of 1868, and the amendment of 1869,
can be gathered from Mr. Garfield's speech. As a whole, his plan failed
to pass ; but the act making appropriations for the army for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1870, approved March 3, 1869, contained these
provisions : —

" That there shall be no new commissions, no promotions, and no en-
Hstments in any infantry regiment until the total number of infantry regi-
ments is reduced to twenty-five ; and the Secretary of War is hereby
directed to co^nsolidate the infantry regiments as rapidly as the require-
ments of the public service and the reduction of the number of officers

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 409

wiD permit .... That no appointments of Brigadier-Generals shall be
made until the number is reduced to less than eight ; and thereafter there

shaD be but eight Brigadier-Generals in the army That hereafter

the term of enlistment shall be five years That, until otherwise

directed by law, there shall be no new appointments and no promotions
in the Adjutant-General's Department, in the Inspector-General's Depart-
ment, in the Pay Department, in the Quartermaster's Department, in the
Commissary Department, in the Ordnance Department, in the Engineer
Department, and in the Medical Department"

MR. CHAIRMAN, — I desire to state to the committee as
briefly as I can the substance of the amendment offered
by the Committee on Military Affairs, and to call their atten-
tion to the questions involved in the proposed reduction of the
army; and as the amendment is likely to meet with some op-
position, I shall be greatly obliged if I can have the attention
of the committee while I state the conclusions and recommen-
dations of the Committee on Military Affairs, and the grounds
of their action.

I wish, in the outset, to say that the committee share to the
fullest extent in the general desire and determination of this
House to reduce expenditures, and they believe that the extent
to which retrenchment ought to be carried should be limited
only by the necessities of the public service and the efficiency
of the several departments of the government. Retrenchment
unwisely made is wastefulness. It is not economy alone that
should be considered in reorganizing the army. The com-
mittee have proceeded, and I shall proceed, upon the supposi-
tion that the question has been settled by Congress that we are
to maintain an army of such size and organization as the people
are willing to support with their means, and will be proud of
as a worthy and valuable instrument of the government. When
the army is properly organized, when it is not too large, when
it is well officered and well disciplined, it ought to be the pride
of every American citizen ; it ought to be an institution that we
desire to protect; and it is the duty of this House so to adjust
and limit its organization that we shall not need to make it the
object of evcry-day attack, but may defend it here while it
defends the country and maintains the national hq^ior. It ap-
pears to me, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the preliminary and

410 THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

primary inquiry is, How large an army do we need? When
we have settled that, we should next make all the reduc-
tion and retrenchment consistent with the national honor and
with the efficiency of the army that we have determined to
maintain. To these considerations I invite the attention of the
committee.

In order to understand the situation, I beg leave to call the
attention of the committee to the size of our army as now au-
thorized by law, and then to what it is in fact.

The army, as it stood before the war, was admitted on all
hands to be the smallest organization consistent with the public
safety in time of peace. We had in t86o an army of 11,848
enlisted men and 1,083 commissioned officers. In July, 1866,
not quite three years ago, Congress discussed very fully what
should be our future army, and, after long debate in both houses,
passed the law of July 28, 1866, fixing the military peace estab-
lishment. That law authorized five regiments of artillery, ten
of cavalry, and forty-five of infantry, and fixed the staff depart-
ments as they are now organized. The law so fixed the maxi-
mum strength and the minimum strength of a regiment of each
arm of the service, that the army might contain as many as
80,370 or as few as 47,270 of enlisted men. Whether it should
be in fact the larger or the smaller number, or any intermedi-
ate number, was left to the wisdom and discretion of the Presi-
dent of the United States. This law of July, 1866, was the
last legislative utterance of the people of the United States
through their Congress in regard to their peace establishment,
and that utterance declared that we should have an army of
about 3,200 commissioned officers, and from 47,000 to 80,000
of enlisted men. The President used the discretion given him
by this law, and I will show how he has used it. The new army,
organized in accordance with this law, amounted in 1867 to
54,641 men. One year later, as shown by the Army Register of
1868, the army had been allowed to run down to 52,948 men.
That was the force in August, 1868. I ought to mention, in
passing, that while General Grant was Secretary of War ad
interim he cut off nearly eighteen thousand civil employees of
the army and War Department who were not mustered into the
military service. As the necessity of a military police in the late
Rebel State§ diminished, the rank and file of the army has been
allowed to decrease by not filling it by enlistments, until, on the

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 411

1st of January, 1869, a little more than five weeks ago, the full
strength of the army was 38,575 enlisted men, and a few less
than 3,CXX) commissioned officers.

The army is now below the minimum. The law has not been
construed as requiring it to be kept up to the minimum, though
perhaps a strict construction would require the President to
recruit it up to 47,270; and he can to-day order it increased
to 80,000 men. Such being the law now, the question is, How
much lower shall we fix the legal limit to the size of our army?

In the first place, the Committee on Military Affairs have not
thought it wise to depart from the policy of the government,
which has not been changed during almost half a century, that,
while we do not need to keep in time of peace an army sufficient
for a time of war, yet we ought in time of peace to keep alive and
in vigorous growth a knowledge of military science and habits
of military discipline, and maintain such an organization as can
be readily expanded and placed upon a war footing whenever
the necessity for it shall arise.

In looking over the debates and historical reviews that fol-
lowed the war of 18 12, I have noticed that it wa$ conceded on
all hands, that before the war the army had been allowed to run
down to so low a point that, when the war came on, the coun-
try found itself with an organization insufficient to be expanded
into an army on a war footing; and the Secretary of War, a
few years after that war ended, said, in an official report to
Congress, that the losses and expenses resulting from this in-
sufficient organization during the first year or two of the war
were vastly greater than the expense that would have been
incurred in maintaining an army large enough to be readily
expanded to a war basis. For this purpose, how much larger is
our army now than it ought to be?

Aside from this question we must consider our present situa-
tion in regard to Indian hostilities. Last session the Committee
on Military Affairs recommended a small reduction in the cavalry ^
arm of the service. At this time they do not report any reduc-
tion of the cavalry, for the reason that in the Indian war now
in progress, and in Indian wars generally, cavalry are the main
reliance. Our officers in command say that infantry can be of
little value in actual Indian fighting, especially in the winter
time; and in order to meet the necessities of the case, the
Secretary of War has raised in Kansas, and has been employing

412 THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

for the last five or six months, a volunteer regiment of cavalry
to serve against the Indians, the cavalry of the army being
insufficient for that purpose. So long, therefore, as we find it
necessary to employ volunteer cavalry to assist in this Indian
war, the committee do not feel themselves justified in recom-
mending a reduction of that arm of the service.

We have now nearly the same artillery organization that we
had before the war. In i860 we had four regiments of artillery ;
there was an increase of one regiment made by the act of 1866;
and it must be remembered that since the passage of that law
we have greatly extended our coast, — that we have added an
empire to the republic. At the present time, as the records
of Uie War Department show, we have a chain of fortified posts
along otir coasts, mounting three thousand two hundred and
fifty coast guns, and we have not enough enlisted men in the
artillery to enable us to put two men to each gun. These forti-
fications are a part of the defensive force of the United States.
If they need not be manned, they must at least be taken care
of; and the force that takes care of them should form the mili-
tary police of our coasts to enforce the collection of revenue,
and, if need be, to enforce the respect of all who approach
our shores. The committee considered the number of posts
now occupied by the army, the number of our fortified works,
the number of our coast guns now in place, and have not
thought themselves justified in reducing the present force of
artillery.

Mr. Logan. I would like to ask the gentleman a question for infor-
mation, inasmuch as I have not given the subject much consideration.
I would like the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs to infomi
the House whether in time of peace there is any necessity for having at
each of our forts enough men to man each gun, as if we were in a state of
war. In other words, is there any necessity for any more men than may
be required to keep the guns and carriages and necessary implements in
order ?

I quite agree with the gentleman from Illinois, that we do not
need in time of peace as many guns as would be required in
time of war ; nor do I hold that it is necessary even to man all
the guns that we have. But I regard it a proper policy for the
government to occupy and keep in good order such of our
coast defences as are necessary for the protection of the coast,
and as may be vitally important to us in case of foreign war.

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 413

Passing over several points which may properly be consid-
ered when we discuss the details of the bill, I come now to the
infantry. In making their recommendations on this subject,
the Committee on Military Affairs do not forget that the Secre-
tary of War and the General-in-Chief of the Army, at the open-
ing of this session, were very decided in their recommendations
that there be no legislation at present requiring the reduction
of the army, and in the opinion that the condition of our affairs
would not allow a more rapid reduction than was going on by
the expiration of terms of enlistment Still, the committee,
anxious to do everything consistent with safety in the way of
the reduction of expenditures, have proposed in this amendment
the cutting down by consolidation of fifteen infantry regiments,
so that, instead of forty-five regiments, as now authorized by
law, there shall hereafter be but thirty. We believe that the
progress made in the work of restoring the late Rebel States,
and the more pacific aspects of the South under the incoming
administration, will warrant us in making this measure of reduc-
tion in the line of the army. The consolidation and ultimate
reduction of the number of officers and enlisted men of fifteen
regiments will result in a reduction of expenses of about ten
million dollars per annum.

But the Committee on Military Affairs have raised a question
which, in their judgment, is even more important to the coun-
try and the army than a specific reduction of numbers; and
that question is, whether we cannot, in some departments of
the army, make an organic reduction, so that the work of the
army may be performed by a smaller number of officers than
we now employ. Entertaining views on this subject which we
desired to test by the experience of men who had been long in
the service, the committee have called before them during the
last three weeks a number of distinguished officers, examined
them, and have preserved a phonographic report of their testi-
mony. We called line officers of the highest rank accessible to
us, except thci Gc*cral-in-Chief of the Army, and officers repre-
senting the vr.rious staff departments of the army. The results
of our investigation will be shortly laid before the House for
its information ; and I desire to say here, that I know of no
documents relating to the army and the various parts of its
organization so valuable as this testimony. By these examina-
tions the committee have reached some conclusions which I
desire to state.

414 THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

We have found that during the late war, and indeed for many
years, there has been a tendency in the army — a natural one,
perhaps — to aggregate force here in Washington. There has
been a tendency to build up separate staif departments, distinct
from the rest of the army, and to increase tlie number and rank
of the officers in each department ; and we observe, generally,
that the increase m numbers has been toward the head, rather
than toward the foot, of the organization. The development of
the army during the last forty years has been in the direction
of multiplying bureaus, and increasing the number and rank of
officers in each.

Mr. Butler. What new military bureaus have been created?

Several of the staff departments were created in 1818. The
Bureau of Military Justice was created since the war began, and
the inspectors have been separated from the Adjutant-General's
Department more than they were before. We found on exam-
ination that our staff corps differed widely from those of the
leading armies of the world. In the French army, for instance,
■PjgiBQbftbly the most perfectly organized in the world, — there
isj- oae ^gnst staff organization that supplies the army with
adjutant-generak, inspectors, aides-de-camp, and other like offi-
cers ; and another staff charged with the supply of the army.
Thus the duties of one staff corps relate to the personnel, the
duties of the other to the matiriely of the army. Yet we have
now in our army not less than ten distinct staff organizations,
with a constant tendency to increase in numbers and rank. Be-
fore the war, only one officer in all the staff corps held the rank
of brigadier-general ; now there are at the head of these corps
nine brigadier-generals, besides a chief of staff of the army of
the same rank. The Chief Surgeon of the army has become a
brigadier-general ; the Chief Paymaster, the Adjutant-General,
the Judge Advocate, the Chief Commissary, the Chiefs of Ord-
nance and of Engineers, have all become brigadier-generals.
We have now nineteen brigadier-generals in the army, as au-
thorized by law. The committee inquired howr far we might
go in consolidating and reducing these staff organizations with-
out diminishing the efficiency pf the service.

Our attention was directed to the departments which furnish
supplies ; particularly the quartermaster, commissary, and pay
departments. There appears to be no natural division between

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 415

the duties of these departments ; and we saw no reason in the
nature of the case why one man should buy oats, and another
man belonging to another department should buy flour. We
saw no particular reason why there should be one department
for clothing the army, and another for feeding the army. We
found, what is of more consequence, that these departments
conflict in many practical points in such a way as to increase
the expenditure unnecessarily. In the first place, the commis-
sary department purchases all the supplies that make up the
rations of the army. An officer is stationed in New York, for
example, as purchasing commissary. He buys the rations;
but the moment he has purchased them, they pass out of his
hands, and the quartermaster's department becomes responsible
for their transportation to the distant points where the army
is stationed, when they are taken by an officer detailed from
the line, and distributed to the troops. This officer performs
at the same time the duties of commissary and quartermaster.
The work begins with the commissary department, is trans-
ferred to the quartermaster's department, and finally ends with
the commissary department, where the rations are issued.
When they reach the troops, we find the two departments
united in one, yet the accounts are kept 'distinct The same
officer issues the rations, and clothing, and other supplies,
keeps one clerk to make out quartermasters' papers to go up
to Washington to the head of that department, and usually at
the same time keeps another clerk to send another set of pa-
pers through another channel to the head of the commissary
department, also in Washington.

Now, it is the natural and laudable desire of an honest com-
missary to cut down the expenses and the disbursements of
money in his department to the lowest point possible. He will,
therefore, incline to buy where he can buy cheapest ; but when
the quartermaster transports these supplies to the troops, the
total cost may be far more than it would have been if they had
been bought nearer the place of consumption, where they would
cost a little more, but would require less transportation. Npw,
if these two departments were united, purchasing officers, being
responsible also for the transportation, would make purchases
with a view to economy not only in the purchase, but in the
transportation also.

Again, I call attention to the pay department. As now or-

4i6 THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

ganized, I have no doubt that our funds are disbursed with as
much safety and honesty as those of any country in the world.
But consider how the work is done. The country is divided
into pay districts, with headquarters in each, at which a force of
paymasters is stationed. When troops are to be paid at a dis-
tant post, a paymaster starts from his headquarters with a
box of money. The quartermaster's department furnishes him
transportation, and the commander of the troops gives him a
military escort to the place where the payment is to be made.
He must be thus escorted from post to post, and finally be es-
corted and transported back to his headquarters with his sur-
plus funds, if he have any. As the practice is to pay the troops
once in two months, this operation must be repeated six times
a year, with all its cost of mileage and escort, while at the same
time in all these pay districts there is a complete organization
of cohimissaries, and another complete and separate organiza-
tion of quartermasters, charged with the disbursement of public
money and the custody of public property. If the duty of pay-
ing the troops were placed in the hands of these officers, the
cost of transport and escort would be avoided, and the officers,
being always on duty with the troops, could make the payment
much more promptly and regularly than it is now done.

It is in evidence before the committee, that many of the
troops at distant posts are paid but once in six months, and
in some instances not so often as that. It also appears, that at
all these posts an officer detailed from the line performs the
duty of both commissary and quartermaster, and if, as we pro-
pose in the pending amendment, this officer shall be required
to give bonds, as now required of disbursing officers in the
quartermaster's department, he can pay the troops in addition
to his other duties without any additional cost to the govern-
ment. Considering, therefore, the nature of the duties of these
three departments, that they are in many respects complements
of each other, and considering also the fact that in some other
countries all these functions are performed by one department,
the Committee on Military Affairs are of the opinion that the
consolidation of the three might safely be made. But they were
not willing to recommend so radical a change in the organiza-
tion of the army on their own judgment alone ; they therefore
called to their aid officers whose professional duties enabled
them to speak from practical knowledge.

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 417

It is due to the distinguished officers at the head of the sev-
eral staff departments to state that most of them were opposed
to the proposed consolidation. And I ought to say, that during
the late war these departments performed the duties severally
devolved upon them with great efficiency. I do not doubt that
our army was better fed and clothed, and more bountifully sup-
plied thai> any other army in modern times ; and it was paid
as promptly as the state of the treasury would permit. Great
praise is due to the men who organized and managed the vast
machinery by which the supplies were furnished. But I have
no doubt that a staff organization less divided and less inde-
pendent in its. subdivision might have supplied the army
equally well and much more economically. I hope soon to lay
all the testimony before the House ; but in the short time now
at my command I can do little more than refer to it. I will,
however, place on record a few passages which exhibit the
opinions of some officers who testified .on the point now under
discussion.

[Here Mr. Garfield quoted from the testimony of General John M..
Schofield, Secretary of War, in which that officer declared himself ia
favor of consolidating the commissary, quartermaster's, and paymaster's
departments.* Mr. Garfield then proceeded.]

In General McDowell's testimony he gives the origin and his-
tory of the several staff departments of the army, and sketches
the process by which the work of division has gone steadily on
for half a century. From the organization of the government
under the Constitution down to 18 12, the supplies of the army
were not furnished by the War Department at all, but by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The pay department was not a dis-
tinct organization, as it now is, until 18 19.

[Here followed a lengthy quotation from the testimony of General
Irwin McDowell. Mr. Garfield then continued his remarks.]

It will be seen by this testimony that General McDowell sue*
cessfully consolidated the two departments in his late command
on the Pacific coast, and thus proved its practicability.

The gentleman from Illinois, near me,'^ suggests that he would
like to have some evidence from an officer who has himself per-

* All the testimony quoted by Mr. Garfield that is here omitted is found in
House of Representatives Report, No. 33, 3d Session, 40th Congress, made Feb-
ruary 26, 1869.

* Mr. Logan.

VOL. I. 27

4i8 TME REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

formed both duties. I am glad to be able to furnish some such
evidence. It is the testimony of General Rufus Ingalls, one of
the most distinguished officers in the quartermaster's depart-
menti whose services as Chief Quartermaster of the Army of the
Potomac during the war have become an illustrious part of our
history.

[The lengthy quotation made from General IngaHs is omitted. Mr.
Garfield continued.]

It will be seen from this that General IngaUs actually per-
formed, for a long period, the duties of these three departments,
and he declares that there is no practical difficulty in the way of
consolidation. I should quote from the testimony of General
Hancock, were it before me ; but I will say only that he fully
concurs with the officers from whom I have quoted. Another
officer who has long been in the pay department. General Ihre,
not only confirms these views, but long ago presented the draft
of a bill for the consolidation of the three departments.

For these reasons, therefore, the committee believe that those
three departments can be consolidated, and we have prepared a
section for that purpose, which will reduce the number of officers
very considerably. There are at present in those three depart-
ments one hundred and eighty-seven commissioned officers.
We have proposed a supply department of one hundred and
fifteen officers, making a reduction of seventy-two ; and we be-
lieve that all the duties now performed by the three departments
can ultimately be performed as well by the one department as
by the present organizations. Indeed, we think they can be
better performed.

The committee, however, do not believe it possible to deter-
mine beforehand the precise extent to which the reduction in
the number of officers can safely go, and they have placed the
execution of this law in the hands of the President, giving him
such discretion that the service may not suffer by a sudden and
violent breaking up of the present organization. Before the
reduction is completed, he will have time and opportunity to
communicate with Congress on the subject, and to recommend
any change that he may deem necessary. But we have proposed
this measure of reduction as the mark to be aimed at.

Mr. Butler. As the gentleman has reached a period, I desire to
put a question to him. He says this cuts off seventy-two officers. What
does he do with them?

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 419

I reserve all I have to say on that subject to a later point, for
I have not finished what I desire to say with regard to the Con-
solidation.

Mr. Logan. I desire to say a word at this point, because I agree with
the gentleman in reference to consolidation, and I expect he is more
conversant with the matter than I am. I do not suppose the House will
take my testimony, for the reason that gentlemen who are called before
the Military Committee are generally men of high distinction as military
officers ; but I will say to the chairman, that when I was a boy I was
commissary and quartermaster of a regiment, and performed all the
duties with one clerk, and my accounts here show that I did not owe the
government a cent I performed all the duties for two years. That
was in 1848.

I am very glad my friend has alluded to that, for he has called
my attention to a point I was about to omit, and I think it will
have great weight with members of the House. At each of the
posts, of which there are many hundreds, there must be an
officer to issue rations and supplies to the troops. That officer,
in ninety-nine cases in one hundred, performs the duties of
quartermaster and commissary, so that the duty of issuing the
two kinds of supplies to the troops is now actually performed
by one officer, and what the committee recommend is, that we
continue the union all the way up to Washington.

I desire to call attention for a moment — for I see my time is
rapidly passing — to the next recommendation for consolidation
made in this amendment. We have an Ordnance Department,
separate and distinct, which has been steadily growing, until at
last it really has an independent army under its control. There
are now one thousand enlisted men in the military service who
receive their orders only from this department They are not
a part of the army under the command of its generals, but
under the command of a staff corps at Washington. No de-
partment commander commands them. General Grant does not
command them. They receive their orders from the Ordnance
Department only, unless the President empowers some other
officer to give them orders.

Now, what is the business of this Ordnance Department ? It
is to select the models, and to manufacture and distribute arms
and ammunition for the use of the army. The men who use the
artillery have nothing to say in regard to the guns or ammuni-
tion that they use. It would appear to be only just that the

420 TBE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

scientific men who understand all that belongs to artillery should
have something to say about their weapons. The testimony of
General McDowell on this point is so full and satisfactory, that
I quote a passage from it in place of any further discussion of
my own.

'' Questim, What is your opinion as to the propriety of consolidating
the ArtiUery arm of the service with the Ordnance Department?

'' Answer. If you had asked the question as to whether a corps could
have been' constituted that would do these two services better than the
present two organizations, I should say yes.

'' Q. Give your reason for this.

^^ A. We have now a body of officers [artillerists] who have no lot or
part in the devise or manufacture of the artillery and munitions they
use, and a body of officers [Ordnance Corps] who do not use, or whose
duty it is not to use the guns and {projectiles and munitions they make.
This, it is true, applies, but in a fisur less degree, to the other arms of
the service ; but in the artillery good should come of there being a closer
connection between the theory and practice the art than exists. In
both the English and the French service the ordnance and artillery, such
as is the latter with us, form one corps.

" Q, Were they ever so in our service ?

" A, In the Mexican war, General Scott used the Ordnance officers
in the service of his siege artillery. They also served in the light bat-
tery. I find we have had an Ordnance Department in which officers
of artillery were on duty at arsenals. We had no light artiUery at that
time, nothing but heavy guns on the seaboard fortifications. We did
not have light artillery until 1838. There are many inconveniences in
having the ordnance and artillery distinct, but it has also its good side.
There is a good deal to be said in favor of it.

" Q. Has this question been debated in the army?

" A, Yes, to a considerable extent The Artillery mostly desire it, but
the Ordnance Corps oppose the consolidation. They command their
own arsenals, and report only to their chief in Washington ; they have
their appropriations, and construct all their own buildings, and the con-
sequence is you see the Ordnance establishment very much better than
any other part of the service. They have a very strong esprit de corps,
and would dislike very much to see themselves merged into any other
branch. The difficulties I see in the way are more of a personal nature
than anything else. You get considerable advantage in keeping a man
on some special subject." *

^ Report of the Committee on Military Affairs, on Army Organization, H. R.,
Feb. 26, 1869, pp. 103, 104.

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 421

The committee, therefore, recommend that the Ordnance
Corps be abolished, and that the officers and troop connected
with it be transferred to the Artillery, and that a reduction be
made to the extent of sixteen officers.

I intend, also, to move an amendment that the Signal Corps
be consolidated with the Engineer Department. We should
keep alive in the army the knowledge of signalling, and make
it a part of the instruction at the Military Academy^ but we
want no more force for this purpose than is necessary.

I ought to say, before leaving this subject, that the commit-
tee were impressed with the necessity of a reform in the Staff
Departments that does not call for legislation to accomplish it.
There is in nearly all of them a tendency to independence, which
goes far toward destroying that unity of command and authority
which should always be possessed by commanders. The Ad-
jutant-General's Department, for example, whose duties should
be strictly confined to records, orders, and correspondence, has
charge of the recruitfng service, and commands thousands of
troops. A general commanding a geographical department has
no control over recruits or recruiting stations, — no control or
supervision of arsenals or depots of provisions, nor of the officers
in charge of them ; nor has he any right, without special author-
ity from the President, to command an officer of Engineers to
perform any duty whatever. It appeared, in the evidence before
the committee, that in one instance during the war a captain of
Engineers protested against the right of the major-general com-
manding the department in which he was stationed to order
him to inspect a for^tification, with a view to putting it in a better
state of defence ; and the protest was sustained at Washington.
In that case, however, the captain was justified by one of the
Articles of War. But most of these evils have grown up by
almost imperceptible degrees, as matters of custom, and need
only executive action to correct them.

There are several other points in the amendment of the com-
mittee which I will notice briefly in passing.

We do not propose to abolish brevets altogether, but to reg-
ulate them in the future, so that they shall be conferred only in
time of war for actual service in the face of the enemy ; and
that the precedence in rank and command conferred by brevet
by the Articles of War shall be taken away. I will not stop to
discuss this now, because it has already passed the House, and

422 THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

has gone to the Senate. We propose, also, to extend the term
of enlistment in the future from three to five years. This will
yivc us more efficient soldiers and at less expense, Wc also
propose to reduce the number of non-commissioned officers,
and to muster out fourteen of the bands of music now author-
ized by law.

I now call attention to the mode of reduction proposed. The
Committee on Miliury Affairs believed that the House desired
the transfer of the Indian Bureau to the War Department.
They therefore put in a provision for that purpose, in tlie hope
that it might be allowed to remain. If that had been done,
nearly six hundred civil officers, Indian agents and employees
of the government in the Indian service, whose total salaries
amount to nearly half a million dollars a year, could have been
dispensed with, and their places supplied by officers of the
army. That provision has been stricken out, on a point of
order made by the gentleman from Massachusetts.' There-
fore, one of the features of the amendment as reported from
the committee, which would have provided for the employ-
ment of officers who might be rendered supernumerary by
its operation, has been changed by the action of the House,
and it rests with the House to say what further change shall
now be made in consequence.

But the Committee on Military Afi'airs have so prepared the
measure that the mode of disposing of officers rendered super-
numerary thereby is in one section ; and if the House choose to
make a diff'erent disposition of them, it can be done by chan-
ging that one section. The settlement of the question involved
in that section will require no change in the other sections.
Let it be remembered that the reduction proposed is prospect-
ive, and not necessarily immediate; for it is placed in the
hands of the President to make the reduction as rapidly as
the necessities of the public service will permit. It is not cer-
tain, therefore, that any officers now in the service will be ren-
dered supernumerary by the President's administration of this
law, though they may be ; but it is certain that it will before
very long bring the army down to a much smaller organization
than the present one.

The committee have proposed that the reduction shall be

made in two ways. First, that no further promotions shall be

> Mr. BuUer.

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 423

made in any grade until the aggregate of all the officers of that
grade shall fall below the number provided for ; and, secondly,
that no further appointments of officers from without, and no
further enlistment of private soldiers, shall be made until the
army has been reduced below the limit fixed. I will discuss
the merits of this proposition briefly, and appeal to the House
to decide upon its justice and propriety.

And, first, what is the principle on which the government
has hitherto acted? I believe I am entirely justified by history
when I say that the principle of this section is the settled rule
of the government in regard to the army, the navy, and the
marine corps, and has been the rule for nearly half a century.
I do not say that the rule has never been otherwise, but I do
say there have been few, if any, exceptions to it in our recent
history; the military, naval, and marine peace establishments
have not been reduced by musters out, except for personal
cause.

I do not take the ground that, merely because a man is in
the military service, we are to make him forever an officer, nor
that he is better than other people ; but I do maintain that this
section is based on a rule long maintained by the government,
and it has at least this ground of defence, that when men go
into the military peace establishment they do so in view of all
the conditions of that service. They agree to take a salary far
less, in many instances, than the salaries they might obtain in
civil life, because of the compensating considerations connected
with the service ; — these, for example : that if they become dis-
abled in the line of duty, they are under the protection of the.
pension laws ; that if they grow old in faithful service, they are
entitled to be retired with a small fixed salary for life ; and if
they die in the line of their duty, their families will enjoy the ben-
efit of the pension laws. On these conditions, with these pros-
pects before them, men have for many years been entering the
military peace establishment, and accepting banishment in the
Western wilderness. It may be that the principle is not a
sound one; it may be that our fathers settled it unwisely; it
may be that our policy in regard to both the army and the navy
has been wrong; but it is a fact that this is the settled prin-
ciple, and that, with this understanding of the case, men have
accepted and are now holding commissions in the peace estab-
lishment. The Committee on Military Affairs have thought it

424 THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

I

wise to follow the old rule, to stand by the established prece-
dents, and they have reported accordingly.

Let me state another view of the case. Suppose we should
at once muster out these officers; what would follow? In six
months there would occur in the new army fifty or sixty vacan-
cies, and in the course of a year at least one hundred. How
will you fill these vacancies? You must either reappoint these
men with lower rank than they held before, or you must ap-
point new and untried men to fill their places ; when, if you
had waited a short time, the reduction would be accomplished,
the necessity of new appointments obviated, experienced offi-
cers retained in the army, and no express or implied obligation
broken. I will not place this proposition on so low a ground
as that we propose to keep these men in the army merely for
the purpose of feeding them. I will not insult them by putting
them in the attitude of beggars. They can afford to suffer
wrong from us much better than we can afford to inflict it upon
them. But, sir, theyyare at this very time employed in impor-
tant and perilous duties ; we are in the midst of an Indian war ;
and a large portion of our army is still required in the South
to maintain the public peace. When faithful officers in the
unreconstructed States are bearing the reproaches and scorn of
unrepentant rebels, and suffering in the name of the republic
the indignity of those who hate it, their position will be a most
wretched one if to the contempt of their enemies should now
be added the neglect and injustice of their friends. For one, I
am not willing, either by speech or by silence, to give any
.countenance to such treatment of the officers of the army as
they received in this House a few days since, when the member
from New York City* used this language concerning them:
*• Our avenues and streets are filled with generals and major-
generals and captains and colonels drawing full pay, while the
poor tax-payer is overburdened with unnecessary taxation,
wrung from him for the purpose of supporting these idle vaga-
bonds, who are so well paid, and do nothing." ^

It may become him who never had any sympathy with the
army when it was engaged in putting down the rebellion waged
by his friends, to call our officers ** vagabonds " ; but it does
not become this House to indorse by its action so unworthy a
sentiment.

1 Mr. Wood ^ Congressional Globe, February 5, 1869, P- 9^7'

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 425

I beg gentlemen not to forget that both the Secretary of War
and the General-in-Chief of the Army declare that we ought not
to make any immediate reduction of the army. But the Mili-
tary Committee think we ought to provide for a prospective
reduction, and they have framed their measure with the view of
making that prospective reduction as rapid as the necessities of
the service will permit; but even if it keep in the service a
few officers more than are absolutely necessary, the committee
believe it just to stand by the old rule which has been followed
for so many years.

And now let me sum up, in brief, the results of the proposed
legislation. ' It does not command an instant reduction of the
army, and mustering out of officers and enlisted men ; but it
does command the President to make the reduction as rapidly
as, in his judgment, the necessities of the service will permit, and
to proceed with it until the limit fixed by Congress is reached.
What is that limit? We propose to provide that there shall be
a reduction of fifteen regiments of infantry, and that hereafter
no enlistments shall be made until all the regiments shall have
fallen below the minimum now authorized by law. Accord-
ingly, the President will not be allowed to keep in the army at
any time more than about thirty thousand men. It may be
less; it cannot be more. By the consolidation of the staff
departments as proposed, we provide for a reduction of six
hundred and thirty-eight commissioned officers. There are
now not quite three thousand. It will be a reduction of nearly
one fourth of the total number of commissioned officers. The
bill proposes to abolish the offices of General and Lieutenant-
General on the occurrence of the first vacancy in each, to
reduce the number of major-generals to four, and of brigadier-
generals to six. I am aware that many personal considerations
enter into this feature of the bill. I need not say how willing
the committee would be to leave the honor of promotion to the
higher positions of General and Lieutenant-General open to
some of the distinguished and deserving officers now holding
the commission of Major-General. We yield to none in admira-
tion and gratitude for their distinguished services ; but we be-
lieve the two positions referred to were created as special marks
of personal favor, and were not intended by Congress as per-
manent grades in the army, though the language of the statutes
appears to make them such.

426 TEM REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes left me I desire to call
the attention of the House and the country to the history of
the relation which Congress has sustained to the army. The
past is especially instructive on this subject What writer of
history does not know and regret the fact that our Revolution-
ary fathers stained the noble record of their early legislation
by the manner in which tibey treated the army of the Revolu*
tion after the War of Independence had closed ? No man can
read the history of that transaction without the most painful
regret But, sir, though there may have been no justification,
yet there was an excuse for their conduct which we cannot
plead to-day. They lived not far removed from the days of
military usurpation ; they remembered Cromwell ; they remem-
bered the times when a standing army was dangerous to lib-
erty ; and so great was their love of liberty that, in her sacred
name, they neglected, cruelly neglected, the noble army which
made liberty on this continent possible The volume of history
which I hold in my hand portrays the dismissal of that heroic
army after the battle had been fought and won. I quote a
passage.

"To the officers, Congress, after much discussion and delays that
savored equally of impolicy and ingratitude, had voted half-pay for life.
It is painful to think of the long opposition to the claims of men who,
besides risking their lives in battle and their health in the hardships of
camp, were necessarily cut off during their most vigorous years from
every other method of providing for themselves or their families. To
some minds the army seems always to have presented itself as an object
of apprehension. In strengthening it against the enemy they were still
disturbed by the fear of strengthening it against the people ; forgetting
that the men who composed it came directly from the body of citizens,
and must sooner or later return to it, they feared that the ties by which
long service would bind them to their officers might prove stronger than
the ties by which they were bound to their families. History troubled
them with visions of Caesars and Cromwells, and, like too many who mis-
apply her lessons, they failed to see how utterly unlike were * the Thirteen
Colonies ' to the dregs of Romulus or the England of Charles the First.
They erred where sensible men daily err, by applying to one class of
circumstances the principles which they have deduced from a class radi-
cally different

" It was in a great measure this feeling, combined with a morbid at-
tachment to State rights, or rather an imperfect conception of the vital
importance of a real Union, that delayed the fprmation of an army for

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY, 427

the war till the moment for forming it cheaply and readily was passed.
It was this feeling which, under the plausible show of strengthening the
dependence of the army upon Congress, kept the officers in much
feverish anxiety about the rules of promotion. It was this feeling which
led John Adams to talk seriously about an annual appointment of gen-
erals, and both the Adamses to draw nigh to Gates as a man who, in
some impossible contingency, was to be set up against Washington.

" It is not surprising, therefore, that to minds tinged with these sus-
picions the idea of half-pay for life should seem fraught with serious
danger, or that the men who entertained them should have opposed,
as an invasion of popular rights, what in the light of impartial history
seems a mere act of justice. It was not till the terrible winter of Valley
Forge had been passed through, and when Washington saw himself upon
the point of losing many of his best and most experienced officers, that
a promise of half- pay for seven years to all who should serve through
the war was wrung from a reluctant Congress. It took two years more
of urgent exhortation and stem experience to overcome the last scruples,
and secure a vote of half-pay for life. .... On the 3d [November,
1783], they were disbanded. There was no formal leave-taking. Each
regiment, each company, went as it chose. Men who had stood side by
side in battle, who had shared the same tent in summer, the same hut
in winter, parted, never to meet again. Some still had homes, and
therefore definite hopes. But hundreds knew not whither to go. Their
four months* pay, the only part of their country's indebtedness which
they had received, was not sufficient to buy them food or shelter long,
even when it had not been necessarily pledged before it came into their
hands. They had lost the habits of domestic life, as they had long fore-
gone its comforts. Strong men were seen weeping like children ; men
who had borne cold and hunger in winter camps and faced death on
the battle-field shrank from this new form of trial. For a few days the
streets and taverns were crowded. For weeks soldiers were to be seen
on every road, or lingering bewildered about public places, like men who
were at a loss what to do with themselves. There were no ovations for
them as they came back, toil-worn before their time, to the places which
had once known them ; no ringing of bells, no eager opening of hospi-
table doors. The country was tired of the war, tired of the sound of fife
and drum, anxious to get back to sowing and reaping, to buying and
selling, to town meetings and general elections. Congress was no longer
king, no longer the recognized expression of a common want, — the ven-
erated embodiment of a common hope. Political ambition looked for

advancement nearer home It was long before the country awoke

to a consciousness of its ingratitude towards these brave men." ^

1 Greene's Historical View of the American Revolution, pp. 238-244 (Boston,
1865).

428 THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

Many years later, one of the noblest speeches that Daniel
Webster ever pronounced was in advocating the passage of a
law to do tardy justice by granting pensions to the survivors
of the Revolution.

After the war of 1812, the size of tlie army, the tenure of
office in it, and the mode of reduction, were again the subject
of discussion. The same points which arc now made were
urged then ; and after one able and protracted debate the peace
establishment was so adjusted as to avoid almost wholly the
mustering out of deserving officers. In 1820, during this de-
bate, the Secretary of War made a report to Congress, in which
he set forth the principles which have finally become the settled
policy of the government. The subject was so ably handled
that I cannot do better than quote a few paragraphs, which state
what should be the basis of the peace establishment.

" To give such an organi^ration the leading principles in its formation
ought to be, that at the commencement of hostilities there should be
nothing either to new-model or to create. The only difference, conse-
quently, between the peace and the war formation of the army ought
tu be in the increased magnitude of the latter, and the oniy change in
passing from the former to the latter should consist in giving to it the
augmentation which will then be necessary

" The next principle to be observed is, that the organization ought
to be such as to induce in time of peace citizens of adequate talents
and respectability of character to enter and remain in the military ser-
vice of the country, so that the government may have officers at its com-
mand who to the requisite experience would add the public confidence.
The correctness of this principle can scarcely be doubted, for surely if it
is worth having an army at all it is worth having it well commanded

" Every prudent individual, in selecting his course of life, must be gov-
erned, making some allowance for the natural disposition, essentially by
the reward which attends the various pursuits open to him. Under our
free institutions every one is left free to make his selection, and most of
the pursuits of life, followed with industry and skill, lead to opulence and
respectability. The profession of arms, in the well-established state of
things which exists among us, has no reward but what is attached to it
by law, and if that should be inferior to other professions it would be
idle to suppose individuals possessed of the necessary talents and char-
acter would be induced to enter iL A mere sense of duty ought not
and cannot be safely relied on. It supposes that individuals would be
actuated by a stronger sense of duty towards the government than the
latter towards them

THE REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 429

" No position connected with the organization of the peace establish-
ment is susceptible of being more rigidly proved than that the propor-
tion of its officers to the rank and file ought to be greater than in a war
establishment. It results immediately from a position, the truth of which
cannot be fairly doubted, and which I have attempted to illustrate in the
preliminary remarks, that the leading object of a regular army in time of
peace ought to be to enable the country to meet with honor and safety,
particularly at the commencement of war, the dangers incident to that
state ; to effect this object, as far as practicable, the peace organization
ought, as has been shown, to be such that in passing to a state of war
there should be nothing either to new-model or to create, and that the
difference between that and the war organization ought to be simply in
the greater magnitude of the latter

" Economy is certainly a very high political virtue, intimately con-
nected with the power and the public virtue of the community. In mili-
tary operations, which, under the best management, are so expensive, it
is of the utmost importance ; but by no propriety of language can that
arrangement be called economical which, in order that our military estab-
lishment in peace should be rather less expensive, would, regardless of
the purposes for which it ought to be maintained, render it unfit to meet
the dangers incident to a state of war." *

I am content to stand by this doctrine ; and guided by it, the
Committee on Military Aflfairs have tried to accomplish two
things : to provide for a very large reduction of the expense of
the army, and at the same time to preserve the efficiency and
spirit of its organization.

1 Report of John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, Dec, 12, 1820. State Papers, Class V. (Military Affairs), Vol.
II. pp. 188-191.

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

March i, 1869.

Mr. Garfield was six times appointed a Regent of the Smithsonian
Institution, — in 1865, 1868, 1870, 1872, 1878, and 1879. He is on
record as having attended ten different meetings of the Board, in as
many different years. He also carefully watched over the interests of
the Institution in the House of Representatives. March i, 1869, ^^
following item in the Miscellaneous Appropriation Bill was reached :
** For the preservation of the collections of the exploring and surveying
expeditions of the government, $4,000."

Upon this Mr. Garfield made the following remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN, — I move to amend this paragraph by
striking out four thousand dollars and inserting ten
thousand dollars. And I wish briefly to call the attention of
the Committee of the Whole to the facts upon which I base my
motion.

In 1846, when the Smithsonian Institution was founded, the
government of the United States, by a law of Congress, trans-
ferred to that Institution all the articles belonging to the Mu-
seum which the government then owned. At that time it was
costing four thousand dollars a year to take care of and pre-
serve those articles. Since then a great number of exploring
expeditions have been sent out by the government, and large
additions have been made to the Museum ; and the actual
cost of keeping and taking care of the articles which the gov-
ernment now owns amounts to more than ten thousand dollars
a year. Having imposed this duty upon the Smithsonian Insti-
tution, it is wrong for the government to ask that Institution to

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 43 1

pay six thousand dollars out of its own fund, — donated by a
foreigner to the cause of science in this country — for the care,
preservation, and custody of government property, to say noth-
ing of the use of the building for that purpose.

Mr. Maynard. What are the items of the expenditure for that
purpose? It certainly is not all for personal supervision.

Only so far as the Board of Regents have to employ persons
to take care of these things and see that they are properly
guarded.

I have here a memorial of the Board of Regents, of which I
am a member. It is signed by the Chancellor of the Institution,
Chief Justice Chase, and by the Secretary of the Institution,
Professor Henry. Accompanying that is a detailed statement
of the expenses of the National Museum for the year 1868. I
ask the attention of members to these papers.* It will be
seen that the total expense of the Museum for the year is
$13,480.38. In addition to the foregoing, $125,000 has been
expended since the fire in 1865 on that part of the building
required for the accommodation of the Museum, the interest on
which, at six per cent, would be $7,500 annually.

The bequest to found this Institution was made by a for-
eigner who never visited the United States. He bequeathed
his fortune with unreserved confidence to our government for
the advancement of science, to which he had devoted his own
life. The sacredness of the trust is enhanced by the fact that
it was accepted after the death of him by whom it was confided.
The only indications of his intentions which we possess are ex-
pressed in the terms of his will. It therefore became of the
first importance that the import of these terms should be criti-
cally analyzed, and the logical inference from them faithfully
observed. The whole is contained in these few and explicit
words: "To found at Washington, under the name of the
Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and
diffusion of knowledge among men." These terms have a
strict import, and are susceptible of statement in two definite
propositions.

First. The bequest is for the benefit of mankind ; it is not
to be confined to one country or to one race, but is for all men
of all complexions.

' The memorial and the statement of the expenses of the Museum for the year
j863 are found in the Congressional Globe for March i, 1869, P- 'Z^S*

432 THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Second. The objects of the Institution are, first, to increase,
and, secondly, to diffuse knowledge among men ; and these ob-
jects should not be confounded with each other.

Smithson's will makes no restriction to any kind of knowl-
edge : hence, every branch of science capable of advancement
is entitled to a share of attention. ^

Though the terms of the will are explicit, and convey precise
ideas to those who are acquainted with their technical signifi-
cance, yet to the public generally they might seem to admit
of a greater latitude of construction than has been put upon
them. It is, therefore, not surprising that at the beginning
improper conceptions of the nature of the bequest should have
been entertained ; or that Congress, in the act of organization,
should direct the prosecution of objects incompatible with the
strict interpretation of the will, or that it should impose burdens
upon the Institution tending materially to lessen its usefulness.
The principal of these burdens was the direction to provide a
building on an ample scale to accommodate the collections of
the government, consisting of all the specimens of nature and
art then in the city of Washington belonging to the govern-
ment, or that might thereafter become the property of the
government by exchange or otherwise.

Though the majority of the Board of Regents did not consider
the expenditure on this object of a large amount of the income
in accordance with the will of Smithson, they could not refuse
to obey the injunction of Congress ; hence they proceeded to
erect an extensive building and to take charge of the Museum
of the government. The cost of this building, which at first
was $325,000, has been increased to $450,000 by the repair of
damages caused by the fire, the whole of which has been de-
frayed from the annual income. Notwithstanding this burden,
the Institution has achieved a reputation as wide as the civilized
world, has advanced almost every branch of knowledge, and has
presented books and specimens to hundreds of institutions and
societies in this country and abroad.

It is not a mere statistical establishment, as many may sup-
pose, supporting a corps of men whose only duty is the exhibi-
tion of the articles of a show museum ; but a living, active
organization, that has, by its publications, researches, explora-
tions, distribution of specimens, and exchanges, vindicated the
intelligence and good faith of the government in administering

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 433

a fund intended for the good of the whole community of civil-
ized men. It has at the same time collected a library, princi-
pally of the transactions and proceedings of learned societies,
consisting of fifty thousand volumes ; also a collection of en-
gravings illustrative of the early history and progress of the art,
both of which it has transferred to the library of Congress. It
is not alone the present value of the books which it has placed
in the possession of the government, but also that of the perpet-
ual continuation of the several series contained therein. From
its first organization until the present time, the Institution has
continued to render important service to the government by
examining and reporting on scientific questions pertaining to
the operations of the different departments; and it is not too
much to say that, in this way, particularly during the war, it has
saved the United States many millions of dollars.

Let me say one word more before leaving this subject. As I
have shown, the real purpose of the gift of Smithson, which the
Board of Regents have tried to promote as well as they could,
was to extend and circulate scientific information ; and the man-
agement of the Institution has always resisted the tendency to
keep up and increase this Museum at the expense of the fund.
Recently the Institution has given over to the library of Con-
gress a collection of fifty thousand volumes, constituting proba-
bly the most perfect scientific library in the world. But we are
still charged as an Institution with the cost of this rapidly
increasing Museum. Now, the Regents would be glad if Con-
gress would take this Museum off their hands, and provide
otherwise for its care. It is a charge imposed upon the Institu-
tion by law, — a charge which it never sought and is not desir-
ous to retain. At the time when this Museum was first placed
in the custody of the Institution, it cost but four thousand dol-
lars a year to keep it in the Patent-Office. Now its care costs
three times that amount. I hope, therefore, that the committee
will vote ten thousand dollars for this purpose, instead of four
thousand.

VOL. I. 28

THE MEDICAL AND SURGICAL HISTORY

OF THE REBELLION.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Ma&ch a, 1869.

The foDqwing remarks were made upon a joint resolution to' print at
the government printing-house five thousand copies of the First Part of
the Medical and Suigical History of the Rebellion, compiled by die Sur-
geon-General, and five thousand copies of the Medical Statbtics of the
Plrovost-Mazshal's Bureau.

MR. SPEAKER, — I desire to occupy the floor for a few
moments, and then I will yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.^ I hope the mere question as to what committee
of the House this bill ought to go to will not divert the minds
of members from the merits of the bill itself I am quite as
willing that my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Print-
ing,^ shall have charge of it as any other gentleman, only I want
the House to act upon the bill, and I took charge of it only be-
cause it is so directly related to the war and the army as to
come properly into the hands of the Committee on Military
* Affairs.

As to the cost of the printing, I have here a communication
from the public printer, as reported in the debate in the Senate,
in which he says : —

"The medical and surgical history of the war will be composed of
three parts. The first part contains two volumes of nine hundred pages
each, and is now ready for the printer. The engravings for it have been
obtained under an appropriation made by Congress, and are now in the

1 Mr. Butler. 2 Mr. Laflin.

MEDICAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION. 435

Surgeon -General's office, ready to be placed in the books when the text
is printed. It is this first part alone [that is, the first of the three
parts] which the Surgeon-"General wishes to have printed at present.
The cost of printing and binding will be as follows : — Paper and printing
five thousand copies, two volumes of nine hundred pages each, ^24,625 ;
binding the same in cloth, $2,800. Total, $27,425."

We have here a definite statement of the actual cost of the
publication of two volumes as estimated by the public printer,
being the first third of the whole Medical History of the War.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that in the annals of
medical history there is not anything more creditable to a
nation than the record of our medical operations during the
war. Wherever a knowledge of the work of our surgeons has
gone, it has received the most flattering commendations of pro-
fessional and scientific men. In the course of an inquiry before
the Committee on Military Affairs, it was ascertained that dur-
ing the whole war, notwithstanding the great number of sick
and wounded, and the enormous preparations for their care, —
our comparatively new ambulance system and our vast outlay
for medical supplies, — the average cost of medical attendance
upon our soldiers was but ten dollars a year; and that, I ven-
ture to say, is less than the cost of medical attendance for any
other army in modern times.

This resulted from the fact that we have a most admirable
medical organization. And, sir, from the beginning of the war
to its close the scientific gentlemen who had charge of the medi-
cal department of our army preserved all the most remarka-
ble medical and surgical results of the war. We have to-day
in this city, filling the old Ford's Theatre, probably the most
perfect and valuable medical museum in the world. Profes-
sional men and representatives of learned societies at home and
abroad concur in pronouncing it the most valuable medical
museum ever yet collected. But the materials now ready for
publication are even more valuable than the museum.

I hold in my hand the report of a recent meeting of a leading
medical association in Paris, in which the medical results of the
two great wars in modern times are discussed, — the Crimean
war, including both the French and English armies, and our
own late war. The rates of mortality resulting from capital
operations in the three armies are exhibited in the following
table.

EacMtAnqy.

Am. Union Aimy.

Franck Anny<

Mortal. .

MfirtaL

Mortd.

• 33-3

39-2

61.7

• 245

21.2

55-5

. S-o

16.5

45.2

. lOO.O

85.7

100.0

. 64.0

64.4

91.8

• 57.1

55.^

91.3

. 35.6

26.0

71.9

436 MEDICAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION.
^ The rates in the three armies are: —

Disarticalations at the shoulder
AmputatioDs of the arm
Amputations of the forearm
Disarticulations at the hip
Amputations ^ the th^ .
Disaiticulations at the knee
Amputations of the leg

40.2 33.9 72.8

'' In thig^ amputations, then, ndiile the American and the British lose
64 in 100, the French lose 91.8. The former lose but 26 per cent in
kg amputations, and we lose 71.9. Such a result is heart-rending ; it is
essential to discuss the cause of such a state of things, for the wel^ure of
fVench soldiers and the honor of French surgeiy demand imperious^
that they be removed."

It will be seen from this, that while the average mortality in
the British army was 40.2 per cent, and in the French army
72.8 per centi in our army it was only 33.9 per cent, — vastly
less than in either of the armies of those two great nations.

In this report of the Surgical Society of Paris, with the whole
record of the Crimean war before them as reported by the med-
ical authorities of Great Britain and France, and with only a
preliminary report bearing the modest title of a " Circular "
from the Medical Department of the Army of the United States,
I find the following testimony to the value of the " Circular" : —

" One might be astonished to see these * Circulars ' of the Surgeon-
General referred to, in comparison with the voluminous and formal re-
ports of the British and French armies, since they were printed simply as
a preface to the general medical and surgical history of our war, and are
modestly entitled by the Surgeon-General * Reports on the Extent and
Nature of the Materials available for the Preparation of a Medical and
Surgical History of the Rebellion.' Yet M. Lefort only concurs with the
other leading European reviewers in his estimate of these well-known
documents, of which the chief medical quarterly, the British and Foreign
Medico-Chirurgical Review, declares that, professedly only a preliminary
survey, * it will itself long form an authentic book of reference both to
the military and civil surgeon.' "

Even a mere risumi of the n^aterials in our possession is
looked upon as of more value than the completed record, both

MEDICAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION. 437

French and English, of the medical results of the Crimean war.
I cannot leave this report without quoting one other passage, in
which the comparison is still further carried out.

" The English surgeons kept their wounded at their field hospitals, at
Balaklava, at the Monastery of St. George, and only sent them to their
hospitals on the Dardanelles when they were able to be moved. Why
were our wounded so httle cared for? M. Chenu replies that the French
army had six times the effective force of the English. Then the neces-
sities of the former were six times greater. It is a culpable want of
foresight to send a numerous army far from the mother country, with
inadequate supplies. The question reduces itself to this : Now, who was
responsible ? Was it our army surgeons ? Surely not. Eighty-two offi-
cers of the French medical staff laid down their lives in consequence of
epidemics brought about by maladministration and the neglect of hygi-
enic precautions, — dangers encountered by the entire medical staff with
that courage and abnegation which everywhere characterize the true
physician. But, alas ! in France the medical service of the army is not
directed by medical men, and such men as MM. Levy, Larre, Seriv^,
and Legouest have no voice in the arrangements indispensable to the
physical well-being of our soldiers. When the medical director of the
Army of the East wished to erect a few pavilion field-hospitals, he had
for weeks to exhaust his patience in demonstrating their necessity to
intelligent, well-meaning men, who were quite incapable of comprehend-
ing his reasoning, and who followed his advice or not, according to their
personal prejudices or predilections.

" Happier than the French army, the Americans have no system of
military * intendants ' ; and though their medical ofificers had to grapple
with difficulties very much greater than those we encountered in the
Crimea ; although their theatre of war embraced a territory larger than
the whole of France ; although in the first two years only of the war the
enormous aggregate of 143,318 wounded was one of the problems with
which they had to deal, — the American military surgeons, left to them-
selves, free to display all their energy, to avail themselves of all oppor-
tunities, to profit by their special training, found means to open to the
sick and wounded soldiers two hundred and ^w^ general hospitals, con-
taining 136,894 beds; to tend these so that they lost but thirty-three
per cent of those operated on ; whereas, French surgeons under the
tutelage of the military administrative officers had at their command in
the Crimea inadecjuate hospitals and supplies which were a mockery,
and lost seventy- two per cent of the patients operated on.

" And yet France was supposed to possess, before the campaign be-
gan, a complete medical organization and sufficient supplies, while in
America it was necessary to organize everything."

438 MEDICAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that, when our nation oc-
cupies so proud a position, — when we have in our hands the
most priceless materials that the history of science has ever af-
forded on this subject, — when we are in a condition to exhibit
what will be of more value to the world, and of more credit to
the American medical profession than any other document ever
possessed by any nation in the world, — it seems to me small
business for us to chaffer about the matter of a few hundred
dollars of expense. Were the cost of publication all that gen-
tlemen suppose, I should be in favor of printing this work.
Even far-sighted economy demands this expenditure. We have
already, by the authority given by Congress, ordered the plates ;
they are engraved and paid for, ready to be set up with the
type. The materials are all here, and a little over twenty-seven
thousand dollars will give us five thousand copies of one third
of the whole Of this magnificent work. I shall regret it more
than I can express, if this Congress should omit the opportu-
nity to give this work the publicity which it deserves, and take
to our country the credit which it has so justly earned.

STRENGTHENING THE PUBLIC CREDIT.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

March 3, 1869.

Mr. Garfield was one of the early advocates, if not indeed the
originator, of the measure for legalizing gold contracts. February 10,

1868, he introduced a bill for that purpose. This bill became part of a
more comprehensive measure, viz. Mr. Schenck*s bill of January 20,

1869, "To Strengthen the Public Credit, and Relating to Gold Con-
tracts.'* This bill, variously amended, passed both houses at the close
of the session ; but the President gave it a " pocket veto." Reintroduced
at the first session of the Forty-first Congress, it promptly passed both
houses, and was the first act approved by President Grant, March 18,
1869. It may be fitly transcribed here : —

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled. That, in order to
remove any doubt as to the purpose of the government to discharge all
just obligations to the public creditors, and to settle conflicting questions
and interpretations of the laws by virtue of which such obligations have
been contracted, it is hereby provided and declared that the faith of the
United States is solemnly pledged to the payment in coin, or its equiva-
lent, of all- the obligations of the United States not bearing interest,
known as United States notes, and of all the interest-bearing obligations
of the United States, except in cases where the law authorizing the issue
of any such obligation has expressly provided that the same may be paid
in lawful money or other currency than gold and silver. But none of said
interest-bearing obligations not already due shall be redeemed or paid
before maturity, unless at such time United States notes shall be converti-
ble into coin at the option of the holder, or unless at such time bonds
of the United States bearing a lower rate of interest than the bonds to
be redeemed can be sold at par in coin. And the United States also
solemnly pledges its faith to make provision at the earliest practicable
period for the redemption of the United States notes in coin."

This law may be called the great legal bulwark of the public credit
fi-om 1869 to 1879. Attempts were made to repeal it, but in vain. It
was a plain declaration that the obligations of the government were to be

440 STRENGTHENING THE PUBLIC CREDIT

paid in coin ; and henceforth there could be op question that the nadon
was pledged to coin payments. Paper-money men denoimced the act
and its authors savagely ; some dedared that, if carried out, it would
cost the country a thousand million dollars ; it was said to be a gigantic
swindle ; but, as it gave a new point of departure for financial operadons,
as well as legislation, men came to acquiesce in it as a thing accom-
plished ; and, in the subsequent financial storms that swept the country^
thousands of men, idio had been in doubt whether the original acts
authorizing the bonds and greenbacks required coin redemption, an-
chored securely to the great statute '' to Strengthen the Public Credit"
BCr. Garfield supported the bill in these remarics, made upon the motion
to adopt a report of the conference committee to which it had been
referred.

MR. SPEAKER.— I favor the first section of this bill
because it declares plainly what the law is. I affinn
again, what I have often declared in this hall, that the law does
now require the payment of these bonds in gold. I hope I
may without impropriety refer to the fact that during the last
session I proved from the record in this House, and in the pres-
ence of the author ^ of the law by which these bonds were
authorized, that five distinct times in his speech, which imme-
diately preceded the passage of the law, he declared the five-
twenty bonds were payable, principal and interest, in gold ; and
that every member who spoke on the subject took the same
ground. That law was passed with that declaration uncontra-
dicted, and it went into effect stamped with that declaration by
both houses of Congress. That speech, made on the eve of
the Presidential campaign, was widely circulated throughout
the country as a campaign document, and those who held the
contrary were repeatedly challenged to refute its statements.
I affirm that its correctness was not successfully denied. Not
only Congress so understands and declares, but every Secre-
tary of the Treasury from that day to this has declared that
these bonds are payable in gold. The authorized agents of the
government sold them, and the people bought them, with this
understanding.

The government thus bound itself by every obligation of
honor and good faith; and it was not until one year after the
passage of the law that any man in Congress raised even a

* Mr. Stevens of Pennsylvania.

STRENGTHENING THE PUBLIC CREDIT 441

doubt on the subject. The doubts since raised were raised
mainly for electioneering purposes, and the question was re-
ferred to the people for arbitrament at the late Presidential
election. After the fullest debate ever had on any great ques-
tion of national politics in a contest in which the two parties
squarely and fairly joined issue on this very point, it was sol-
emnly decided by the great majority which elected General
Grant that repudiators should be repudiated, and that the faith
of the nation should be preserved inviolate. We are therefore
bound by the pledged faith of the nation, by the spirit and
meaning of the law, and finally by the voice of the people
themselves, to resolve all doubts, and settle the credit of the
United States by this explicit declaration of the national will.
The action of the House on this bill has already been hailed
throughout the world as the dawn of better days for the finances
of the nation, and every market has shown a wonderful im-
provement of our credit. We could this day refund our debt
on terms more advantageous to the government by $ 1 20,ooo,ocX)
than we could have done the day before the passage of this
bill by the House. Make it a law, and a still greater improve-
ment will result.

I can in no way better indicate my views of the propriety of
passing the second section of this bill, than by reminding the
House that I introduced this proposition in a separate bill on
the loth of February, 1868, and its passage has been more gen-
erally demanded by the people and press of the country than
any other financial measure before Congress. The principle
involved in this section is simply this: to make it possible for
gold to come into this country and to remain here. Gold and
silver are lawful money of the United States; and yet the
opponents of this section would have us make it unlawful for
a citizen to enforce contracts made hereafter, which shall call
for the payment of gold. The very statement of this doctrine
ought to be its sufficient refutation. But the minds of gentle-
men are vexed with the fear that this section will be an engine
of oppression in the hands of creditors. If any new safeguards
can be devised that are not already in this section, I know not
what they are. Whenever this law is carried out in its letter
and spirit, no injustice can possibly result. The whole power
of the law is in the hands of the creditor, and he alone is sup-
posed to be in danger of suffering wrong.

442 STRENGTHENING THE PUBLIC CREDIT.

In the moment that remains to me, I can do no more than to
indicate the grounds on which the justice of this measure rests.
It is a great and important step toward specie payments, because
it removes the unwise and oppressive decree which almost ex-
patriates American gold and silver. It will not only allow our
own coin to stay at home, but it will permit foreign coin to flow
hither from Europe. More than $70,000,000 of our gold is
going abroad every year in excess of what comes to us, and at
the same time in eight kingdoms of Europe there is nearly
$500,000,000 of idle gold ready to be invested at less than three
per cent interest. In the Bank of England and the Bank of
France there has been for more than a year an average of more
than $300,000,000 of bullion, and most of that time the bank
rate of interest has been less than two per cent. Who can
doubt that much of this gold will find its way here, if it can be
invested without committing the fortunes of its owners to the
uncertain chances of inconvertible paper money?

But the passage of this bill will enable citizens to transact
their business on a iixed and certain basis. It will give stability
and confidence to trade, and pave the way for specie payments.
The Supreme Court hd^ in fact decided that this is now the law;
but let us put it on the statute-book as a notice to the people,
and to prevent unnecessary litigation.

THE NINTH CENSUS.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

April 6, 1869.

The first six censuses of the United States were taken under special
laws, enacted on the eve of each recurring decennial enumeration. May
23, 1850, thb President approved " An Act providing for the taking of
the Seventh and subsequent Censuses of the United States, and to fix the
Number of the Members of the House of Representatives, and provide
for their future Apportionment among the several States." Under this
law the censuses of 1850 and i860 were taken. Mr. Garfield's study of
statistics led him to the investigation of the census and of censuses,
which revealed to him the many and great defects of the law of 1850.
So, January 20, 1869, he offered in the House of Representatives this
resolution : " Ecsolvedy That a select committee of seven be appointed to
inquire and report to the House what legislation is necessary to provide
for taking the Ninth Census, as provided by the Constitution ; and that
said committee have leave to report at any time, by bill or otherwise."
The resolution was adopted, and Mr. Garfield was made chairman of the
special committee. The subject was not reached that session, and the
committee ceased to exist with the House that created it At the first
session of the Forty-first Congress a special committee of nine was cre-
ated upon the same subject. Political and personal reasons led the
Speaker to place Mr. Garfield second upon this committee, but with the
understanding that he would be the real chairman. March 24, 1 869, he
reported a bill for taking the ninth and subsequent censuses, which the
House first amended, and then passed. In the Senate no action was had.
As Mr. Garfield passed over part of the ground much more thoroughly
in his speech of December 16, 1869, some of his remarks upon this bill
are here omitted.

MR. SPEAKER, — I am quite sure that I cannot overrate
the importance of any bill which this House may pass,
to provide for taking the next census, nor can I hope, in the

444 THE NINTH CENSUS.

thirty minutes granted me, to discuss it worthily. I can do no
more than indicate some of the leading points connected with
the work, and touch upon the principles on which it rests. But
for the pressure of business which now crowds the closing days
of the session, I should insist on a full discussion of the whole
subject, but I yield to necessity, and ask the House not to judge
the measure by my support of it

It is a noteworthy fact, that the Constitution of the United
States is the only one among modern constitutions that pro-
vides for the taking of a census of the population at regular
intervals. Other nations have established methods of taking
statistical account of their people, but in ours alone, I believe,
is a census made the very basis of the government itself. The
fact is also significant as indicating the tendency of modem
civilization to find the basis and source of power in the people,
rather than in dynasties or in any special theories of govern-
ment. It is a declaration that the population of the country are
the great source of wealth, as well as of power. Our wealth is
found not so much in the veins of rich minerals that fill the
earth as in the purple veins of our free citizens. Placing this
high value on human nature, our fathers wisely required that
once in ten years we should make out anew the muster-roll,
and ascertain the condition and strength of the great army of
civilization which then started on its grand march across the
centuries.

This age is pre-eminently distinguished by the fact that it
recognizes more fully than any other the reign of law; that
not physical nature alone, but man and great communities of
men, are modified and controlled by laws which arc as old as
creation. It is a part of that great reform which Bacon
applied to science, and which modern nations are applying to
politics. Before Bacon's time, if a man desired to write about
the solar system, he sat down in his closet and evolved from
his own mind his theory of the universe ; he framed a plan of
nature, and then tried to bend the facts to suit his theor}'^ : but
the new system of philosophy changed all this. It taught the
man of science that he must become like a little child, sit at the
feet of Nature and learn of her; and that only by a patient and
humble study of facts and phenomena could he discover the
laws by which the universe is governed. In such studies man
must be a discoverer, not an inventor. By slow degrees have

THE NINTH CENSUS. 445

mankind come to know that law pervades the universe of mind
as well as of matter; and latest of all have they come to the
knowledge that men and nations must be studied, and that the
social and political forces of a nation must be examined with
the same care that the man of science studies nature, before we
can frame wise and salutary laws for the government of its
people. All attempts of philosophers to form ideal theories of
government have been utter failures. Neither Plato's Republic,
More's Utopia, nor John Locke's ** Fundamental Constitutions
for the Government of Carolinas," would ever have been tolerated
a day in any nation of the earth. These writers were building
kingdoms in the realms of imagination, not on the earth.

The spirit of our times is far different. When we propose
to legislate for great masses of people, we must first study the
great facts relating to the people, — their number, strength,
length of life, intelligence, morality, occupations, industry, and
wealth ; for out of these spring the glory or the shame, the
prosperity or the ruin, of a nation. We must gather, record,
and consider these great facts, and make them the basis of our
legislation. Men of ancient times resembled rather the Ger-
man philosopher of whom it is said that, if he was called upon
to describe a camel, he could evoke a description of that ani-
mal from his consciousness. The modern method would be
to photograph the camel or dissect him, and learn from actual
observation rather than from the suggestion of the inner con-
sciousness. I believe the time is coming, and indeed is almost
here, when the man who comes into this hall as a legislator for
the people must come, not merely with theories, but furnished
with material facts, which exhibit the condition, wants, wealth,
industry, and tendencies of the people for whom he proposes
to legislate, or he will be powerless to serve their higher
wants. The black-letter learning of the law will not suffice.
He must study the laws which the Creator has written in the
hearts of men, and in the continents which they inhabit, if he
would know how to legislate for a great nation.

This is the age of statistics, Mr. Speaker. The word " statis-
tics" itself did not exist until 1749, whence we date the begin-
ning of the new science on which modern legislation must be
based in order to be permanent. The treatise of Achenwall, the
German professor who originated the word, laid the foundations
of many of the greatest reforms in modern legislation. Statis-

44*5 THE NINTH CENSUS.

tics are state facts, — facts for the consideration of statesmen,
such as they may not neglect with safety. It has been truly
said that " statistics are history in repose ; history is statistics in
motion." If we neglect the one, we shall deserve to be neglected
by the other. The legislator without statistics is like the mari-
ner at sea without a compass. Nothing can safely be commit-
ted to his guidance.

A question of fearful importance to the well-being of the re-
public has agitated this House for many weeks. It is this:
"Are our rich men growing richer, and our poor men growing
poorer?" And how can this most vital question be settled ex-
cept by the most careful and honest examination of the facts?
Who can doubt that the next census will reveal to us more im-
portant truths concerning the condition of our people than any
census ever taken by any nation? By what standard could we
measure the value of a complete, perfect record of the condition
of the people of this country, — such a record as should exhibit
their burdens and their strength? Who doubts that it would be a
document of inestimable value to the legislator and to the nation ?
How to achieve it. how to accomplish it, is the L^reat question.

We are near the end of a decade which has been full of earth-
quakes, and amid the tumult we do not yet comprehend the stu-
pendous changes through which we have passed, nor can we
until the whole field is resurveyed. If a thousand volcanoes
should burst beneath the ocean, the mariner would need new
charts before he could safely sail the seas again. We are soon
to set out on our next decade with a thousand new elements
thrown in upon us by the war. The way is trackless ; who
shall pilot us? The war repealed a part of our venerable
census law, the schedule that was devoted to slaves. Thank
God ! it is useless now. Old things have passed away, and a
multitude of new things are here to be recorded; not only are
the things to be taken new, but the manner of taking them re-
quires a thorough remodelling at our hands. If this Congress
does not worthily meet the demands of this great occasion, every
member must bear his share of the odium that justly attaches to
men who fail to discharge duties of momentous importance,
which, once neglected, can never be performed.

As the previous law had in it a provision in relation to the
basis of representation, we have also treated that subject in this

THE NINTH CENSUS. 447

bill ; and for the information of the House I will state the history
of our legislation on this subject hitherto.

Before the first census was taken, there were sixty-five mem-
bers of the House of Representatives. Under the first two
censuses, from 1793 to 181 3, the basis of representation was a
population of 33,000 to a representative. There were, during
the first decade, 105 members of the House; during the second,
141. From 18 1 3 to 1823, the basis of representation was 35,000,
and there were 181 members. From 1823 to 1833, the basis
was 40,000, and the number of members 212. From 1833 to
1843 the basis was 47,700, and the number of members 240.
From 1843 to 1853, the ratio was 70,680, and the number of
members 223. From 1853 to 1863, the basis was 93,500, and
the number of members 234. In 1863 the basis of representa-
tion was 127,941, and the number of members 241.^

Up to 1850, it will be noticed that the House of Representa-
tives grew, not so fast as population, but nevertheless in a ratio
which corresponded in some degree to the increase of popula-
tion. The law of 1850 made the House of Representatives
stationary in numbers, and the basis of representation for a
member has increased each decade. Now, according to the
best estimate we have seen, the next decade will give us a pop-
ulation of nearly 185,000 for each Representative. This ratio
will cut off about seven Representatives from New England,
several from the Middle States, and transfer the representative
centre of population farther west. The committee believe, on
two or three grounds which I will state in a few words, that we
ought to change the present basis, and instead of providing that
the House of Representatives shall consist of a fixed number of
Representatives, allow it to share to some extent the growth of
the country. If it docs not, every decade will disturb still more
the old balance of representative power. Since 1863, 127,941
Americans have had no more representative power than 33,000
had sixty years ago, nor even so much, for then 33,000 elected
one out of 181 Representatives; now, 170,000 elect but one out
of 233.

Now, the committee believe that 185,000 people is too much
for any one man to represent well. The duties thrown upon
members of Congress as the result of our late war have made

^ The law of 1850 fixed the number at 233. Eight additional members were,
in 1863, apportioned to as many States by a special act.

448 THE NINTH CENSUS.

an immense increase in the amount of business. The personal
relations in which a member of Congress is brought to his con-
stituents, with the increasing business of the nation, will render
it erelong impossible, if it be not so already, for any one man
to perform well and faithfully all the duties of his station.

If the present system continues, and our districts are to in-
crease in the future in the same ratio as in the past, it will
become more and more difficult, and will at length become in
many cases impossible, for any one man to truly represent his
district. How many large districts are there now, one end of
which is agricultural, and perhaps in favor of free trade, while
the other end is engaged in manufactures, and perhaps is in
favor of a high protective tariff! No man can fairly represent
a district so extended that it embraces such diverse opinions
and interests.

Again, it was the purpose of our fathers in framing the Con-
stitution that this House should be the large, if not the popular
body of Congress, as compared with the Senate. Now, for
twenty years the House of Representatives has had no growth.
During the same period, the Senate has been growing at the
rate of two Senators for each new State admitted into the
Union, and the growth of that body in twenty years has been
nearly twenty per cent. Let this state of things continue, and
ultimately the Senate will become the large body and the
House of Representatives the small one: The committee, there-
fore, believe it is wiser to fix some representative basis, and
they propose to fix it at 150,000. According to the best esti-
mates we can get, this will give for the next decade a House of
Representatives of about 270 members, an increase of 2^ over
the number provided for by the present law; and it will prob-
ably not decrease the present number of Representatives from
any State, though it will of course very considerably increase
the number in some of the States.^

This whole matter of representation, however, if the House
do not think it ought to be considered here, can be dropped
out of this bill, and left to be considered after we get the pre-
liminary census report. We have thought it advisable, how-
ever, to put it in here, because once in the history of the
government there was a long and acrimonious struggle over
the question of a representative ratio, growing out of the fact

1 The law of 1873 ro^de the ratio 130,533, the number of Representatives 292.

THE NINTH CENSUS. 449

that Congress had the figures before them, and each member
knew how many members his State would get from any ratio
that might be adopted. We can fix that matter now, before we
know what the figures will be, letting it hit where it may, better
than we can when the result is known, and individual and State
interests are involved

VOL. I. 29

THE NINTH CENSUS.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

December 16, 1869.

The bill that passed the House of Representatives, April 6, 1869, had
it become a law, would have been but a tentative measure. As amended,
the bill provided for a Census Bureau with a Superintendent at its head ;
also for a joint committee of the two houses, composed of the House
committee already appointed and such committee as the Senate might
add thereto, which committee was to investigate the whole subject in
the recess of Congress, and to report by bill at the next session. The
House bill having failed in the Senate, the House adopted this resolu-
tion : " Resolvedy that the Committee on the Ninth Census shall have
power to send for persons and papers and to examine witnesses, in order
to ascertain the best method of taking the said Ninth Census, and for
obtaining such other information concerning the population, industry-^,
property, and resources of the country as they may think proper, for
the purpose of rendering the census and statistics to be obtained forth-
with correct and valuable. And said committee are hereby authorized
to act during the recess of Congress through sub-committees, and shall
report at the next session of Congress a bill for the taking of the census,
with such schedules, forms, and directions as they may think best ; and
the Congressional Printer is hereby authorized to print such portions of
the evidence and such documents as said committee may require during
the recess, in order that their report may be made in print at the com-
mencement of the next session of Congress.'*

In the recess a sub-committee, with Mr. Garfield at its head, thor-
oughly investigated the whole subject, and the first day of the next ses-
sion a bill was reported " for taking the Ninth Census of the United
States, to ^yi the number of the members of the House of Representa-
tives, and to provide for their future apportionment among the several
States." After lengthy and thorough discussion, the House, having first
struck out those parts relating to the number of Representatives and
their apportionment among the States, as well as made some minor

THE NINTH CENSUS, 451

changes, passed the bill, December 1 6. The title, amended to suit the
changes made in the bill, was, " A Bill to provide for taking the Ninth
Census of the United States." The following is the speech with which
Mr. Garfield closed the debate in the House. The Senate tabled the
bill after a spirited debate.

Although defeated in 1870, Mr. Garfield's attempt to secure an im-
proved census law was exceedingly fruitful in results that may be here
mentioned.

P'irst, it secured some immediate modifications of the law of 1850, the
effect of which was to make the census of 1870 more valuable than it
would otherwise have been.

Second, it called out a large amount of census literature. The docu-
ments published under the direction of the Census Committee were as
follows: "Ninth Census of the United States," 48 pages, consisting of
letters addressed to the committee by various authorities and experts ;
" Constitutional Provisions of States with Reference to a Census as the
Basis of Representation in their Legislatures," 9 pages ; " Provisions of the
National and State Constitutions and Laws relating to the Right of Suf-
fice," 36 pages ; and the " Report of the Census Committee," submitted
January 18, 1870, 120 pages. This report was prepared under the imme-
mediate direction of Mr. Garfield, and much of it was fi'om his own hand.
To some extent it includes the ground covered by the former documents.
All in all, this report is to-day the best census manual that has yet appeared.
What is more, out of those studies grew the article entitled " Census," in
♦ Johnson's Cyclopaedia. Touching this report and article, Mr. S. S. Cox
said, in the House of Representatives, February 18, 1879 : " The exhaust-
ive Report No. 3, Forty-first Congress, made by the gentleman firom
Ohio, on the i8th of January, 1870, makes it unnecessary for me to col-
late the history connected with statistical observation. Even if that report
were not in existence, the comprehensive article in Johnson's Encyclopae-
dia, by the same distinguished gentieman, would furnish all the informa-
tion necessary to understand the history of the census, fi-om the beginning
of civilization down to and including our own country."

Third, that attempt led to the law under which the census of 1880
was taken. This excellent law was little more than a transcript of Mr.
Garfield's bill of ten years before. Mr. Cox, who had the management
of the bill of 1880 in the House, speaking of the law of 1850, said:
" Indeed, it was confessed by those who prepared that bill, that it was
but a trial. Its framers hoped for larger and more liberal legislation in
future. In so far as this House is concerned, they gave that legislation
in 1870, and the Senate last week has shown its disposition to substitute
another law, not unlike ours, for that of 1850."

Mr. Garfield's minor speeches and incidental remarks on the bills of
1870 and of 1880 will be found full of valuable information and useful

452 THE NINTH CENSUS.

thought The pamphlet entitled, " The American Census, a Paper read
before the American Social Science Association, at New York, October
27, 1869, by James A. Garfield," is substantially the same as the follow-
ing speech. Here are the '' materials " referred to below.

"Statistics are History in rqx>8e; History is Statistics in motion." — Schlossbr.

MR. SPEAKER, — The protracted and patient attention
which the House has given to this bill during the last
seven days is the best evidence that could be offered of the
deep interest felt in the subject; and the fact that no leading
feature of the bill as introduced by the committee has been
changed by the House is a strong assurance that the House
approves of the work of the committee. I now beg leave to
present a brief review of the bill in its present shape, as com-
pared with the old law, and will also venture to ask the indul-
gence of the House in the presentation of some general consid-
erations on the subject of the census as a leading instrument of
modem civilization. In doing so I shall take the liberty of using
some materials which I have used elsewhere, in discussing the
general subject.

The modern census is so closely related to the science of sta-
tistics, that no general discussion of it is possible without con-
sidering the principles on which statistical science rests, and
the objects which it proposes to reach. The science of statis-
tics is of recent date, and, like many of its sister sciences, owes
its origin to the best and freest impulses of modern civilization.
The enumerations of inhabitants and the appraisements of prop-
erty made by some of the nations of antiquity were practical
means employed sometimes to distribute political power, but
more frequently to adjust the burdens of war; but no attempt
was made among them to classify the facts obtained, so as to
make them the basis of scientific induction. The thought of
studying these facts to ascertain the wants of society had not
then dawned on the human mind, and of course there was not a
science of statistics in the modern sense.

It is never easy to fix the precise date of the birth of any
science, but we may safely say that statistics did not enter upon
its scientific phase before 1749, when it received from Professor
Achenwall, of Gottingen, not only its name, but the first com-

THE NINTH CENSUS, 453

prehensive statement of its principles. Without pausing to
trace the stages of its growth, some of the results of the culti-
vation of statistics in the spirit and methods of science may
be stated as germane to this discussion.

I. It has developed the truth that society is an organism,
whose elements and forces conform to laws as constant and
pervasive as those which govern the material universe; and
that the study of these laws will enable man to ameliorate his
condition, to emancipate himself from the cruel dominion of
superstition, and from countless evils which were once thought
beyond his control, and will make him the master, rather than
the slave, of nature.

Mankind have been slow to believe that order reigns in the
universe, — that the world is a cosmos, and not a chaos. The
assertion of the reign of law has been stubbornly resisted at
every step. The divinities of heathen superstition still linger,
in one form or another, in the faith of the ignorant ; and even
many intelligent men shrink from the contemplation of one
Supreme Will acting regularly, not fortuitously, through laws
beautiful and simple, rather than through a fitful and capricious
Providence. Lecky tells us * that, in the early ages, it was be-
lieved that the motion of the heavenly bodies, as well as atmos-
pheric changes, were effected by angels. In the Talmud a special
angel was assigned to every star and every element, and similar
notions were general throughout the Middle Ages. The scientific
spirit has cast out the demons, and presented us with Nature,
clothed and in her right mind, and living under the reign of law.
It has given us for the sorceries of the alchemist the beautiful
laws of chemistry ; for the dreams of the astrologer, the sub-
lime truths of astronomy ; for the wild visions of cosmogony,
the monumental records of geology; for the anarchy of dia-
bolism, the laws of God.

But more stubborn still has been the resistance to every at-
tempt to assert the reign of law in the realm of society. In
that struggle statistics has been the handmaid of science, and
has poured a flood of light upon the dark questions of famine
and pestilence, ignorance and crime, disease and death. We
no longer hope to predict the career and destiny of a human
being by studying the conjunction of planets at the time of his
birth. We study rather the laws of life within him, and the ele-

^ Rationalism in Europe, Vol. I. p. 289 (New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1866).

4S4 '^H^ NINTH CENSUS.

ments and forces of nature and society around him. We no
longer attribute the untimely death of infants to the sin of
Adam, but to bad nursing and ignorance. We are beginning
to acknowledge that

** The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

Men are only beginning to recognize these truths. In 1853
the Presbytery of Edinburgh petitioned the British ministry to
appoint a day of national fasting and prayer, in order to stay
the ravages of cholera in Scotland. Lord Palmerston, the Home
Secretary, replied in a letter which, a century before, no British
statesman would have dared to write. He told the clergy of
Scotland, that, the plague being already upon them, activity
was preferable to humiliation; that the causes of disease
should be removed by improving the abodes of the poor,
and cleansing them " from those causes and sources of conta-
gion which, if allowed to remain, will infallibly breed pestilence
and be fruitful in death, in spite of all the prayers and fastings
of a united but inactive nation." Henry Thomas Buckle ex-
pressed the belief that this letter would be quoted in future
ages as a striking illustration of the progress of enlightened
public opinion.^ But that further progress is possible is seen
in the fact that, within the last three years, an English Bishop
has attributed the rinderpest to the Oxford Essays and the
writings of Colcnso. In these remarks, I disclaim any reference
to the dominion of the Creator over his spiritual universe, and
the high and sacred duty of all his intelligent creatures to rever-
ence and worship him. I speak solely of those laws that relate
to the physical, intellectual, and social life of man.

2. The developments of statistics are causing history to be
rewritten. Till recently, the historian studied nations in the
aggregate, and gave us only the story of princes, dynasties,
sieges, and battles. Of the people themselves — the great so-
cial body, with life, growth, forces, elements, and laws of its
own — he told us nothing. Now, statistical inquiry leads him
into the hovels, homes, workshops, mines, fields, prisons, hos-
pitals, and all other places where human nature displays its
weakness and its strength. In these explorations he discovers
the seeds of national growth and decay, and thus becomes the

* See History of Civilization in England, Vol. II. pp. 465-467 (New York, D.
Appleton & Co., 1867).

THE NINTH CENSUS. 455

prophet of his generation. Without the aid of statistics, that
most masterly chapter of human history — the third of Macau-
lay's History of England — could never have been written.

3. Statistical science is indispensable to modern statesman-
ship. In legislation as in physical science, it is beginning to be
understood that we can control terrestrial forces only by obey-
ing their laws. The legislator must formulate in his statutes
not only the national will, but also the great laws of social life
revealed by statistics. He must study society rather than black-
letter learning. He must learn the truth, " that society usually
prepares the crime, and the criminal is only the instrument that
completes it " ; that statesmanship consists rather in removing
causes than in punishing or evading results. Light itself is a
great corrective. A thousand wrongs and abuses that grow in
the darkness disappear like owls and bats before the light of
day. For example, who can doubt that before many months
the press of this country will burn down the whipping-posts of
Delaware as effectually as the mirrors of Archimedes burned
the Roman ships in the harbor of Syracuse?

I know of no writer who has exhibited the importance to
statesmanship of this science so fully and so ably as Sir George
Cornewall Lewis in his treatise " On the Methods of Observation
and Reasoning in Politics." After showing that politics is now
taking its place among the sciences, and, as a science, rests its
superstructure on observed and classified facts, he says of the
registration of political facts, which consists of history and statis-
tics, that it may be considered as the entrance and propylaea to
politics. It furnishes the materials upon which the artificer
operates, which he hews into shape and builds up into a sym-
metrical structure. In a subsequent chapter he states the im-
portance of statistics to the practical statesman in this strong
and lucid language : " He can hardly take a single safe step
without consulting them. Whether he be framing a plan of
finance, or considering the operation of an existing tax, or fol-
lowing the variations of trade, or tracing the influences of a poor-
law, or studying the public health, or examining the effects of
the criminal law, his conclusions ought to be principally guided
by statistical data." ^

Napoleon, with that wonderful vision vouchsafed to genius,
saw the importance of this science when he said : " Statistics is

^ Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, Vol. I. p. 134.

*f "^"

4|^ 3SM mNTH CENSWS.

tbe budget iif tiuiigs; and w^out a \mA%!A Ibene it no public
si£9ty." We may iiot, perhaps, |^ as far as Goetiie dtd> and
declare tbat ^figures govern ithe workl"; but we can foltjr
agree wil& Urn that "^ they riuw how k is governed/'

BaitMi Qoetelet, of Bdgiiifiiy *OAe of the cipest scholars asd
profoundestt studei^ oif statistical sciencei oonchides his latest
dbapto- of scientific results in Ihese wor^ : —

''One of die print^-resohs of dvilizatiQn is to fedtice moie and
iMre^Kmits within fiUdilhe d£feienrdemeB^ of vodetjrtactnaie.
1%e mere intelEgmce increases, Ae mwe these Ikidts sie zedaced, and
Ifae iiesrer we ap^neach the beantifid and the ^^ The perfectiBailgr
of diehani&niqpedes xesnltsas aneoessaiy coDsecpience of afl our r&>
aearches. Hqrsicil defects and monstrosities aze.fiadna% dai^ppeaniigi
tfie^vqmenqr and 8everi^t>f disesaes are ressted moie sucoessfalljr bjr
tiie ^progress of medical sdenoe. The mi»al qualities of man are pnnr*
hag themselves not iess capable of inqxrovement ; and the nunre we ad-
nicance, the less weshall have need to fear those great political convulsions
and wars, and thek attendant result^ which are the scom^ges of mankind."

It should be added, that Ihe growing lsq>ortance oi political
science, as well as its recent origin, is exhibited in the fact that
nearly every modem nation has established, within the last half-
century, a bureau of general statistics for the uses of states-
manship and science. The thirty states of Europe are now
<assiduously cultivating the science. Not one of their central
bureaus was fully organized before the year 1800.

The chief instrument of American statistics is the census,
which should accomplish a twofold object It should serve the
country, by making a full and accurate exhibit of the elements
of national life and strength ; and it should serve the science of
statistics, by so exhibiting general results that they may be com-
pared with similar data obtained by other nations. In the light
of its national uses, and its relations to social science, let us con-
sider the origin and development of the American census.

During the Colonial period, several enumerations of the in-
habitants of the Colonies were made by order of the British
iBoard of Trade ; but no general concerted attempt was made to
take a census until after the opening of the Revolutionary war.
As illustrating the practical difficulty of census-taking at that
time, a passage in a letter written in 1715, to the Lords of Trade,
by Hunter, the Colonial Governor of New York, may be interest-
ing : " The superstition of this people is so unsurmountable that

THE NINTH CENSUS. 457

I believe I shall never be able to obtain a complete list of the
number of inhabitants of this Province." ^ He then suggests a
computation based upon returns of militia and of freemen ; after-
ward the woman and children, and then the servants and slaves.
William Burnet, Colonial Governor of New Jersey, writing to
the Lords of Trade, June 2, 1726, after mentioning returns made
in 1723, says: —

" I would have then ordered the like accounts to be taken in New
Jersey, but I was advised that it might make the people uneasy, they
being generally of a New England extraction and thereby enthusiasts :
and that they would take it for a repetition of the same sin that David
committed in numbering the people, and might bring on the like judg-
ments. This notion put me off from it at that time, but since your Lord-
• ships require it, I will give the orders to the sheriffs that it may be done
as soon as may be." ^

That this sentiment has not yet wholly disappeared may be*
seen from the fact, that, at a public meeting held on the evening
of November 12, 1867, in this city, pending the taking of the
census of the District of Columbia by the Department of Edu-
cation and the municipal authorities, a speaker, whose name is
given in the reported proceedings, said : —

" I regard the whole matter as illegal Taking the census is an im-
portant matter. In the Bible we are told David ordered Joab to take
the census, when he had no authority to do so, and Joab was punished
for it. He thought these parties [the Metropolitan Police] should be
enjoined from asking questions, and he advised those who had not re-
turned the blank not to fill it up, or answer a single question."

As early as 1775, the Continental Congress resolved that cer-
tain of the burdens of the war should be distributed among the
Colonies " according to the number of inhabitants of all ages,
including negroes and mulattoes, in each Colony"; and also
recommended to the several Colonial conventions, councils, or
committees of safety to ascertain the number of inhabitants in
each Colony, and to make return to Congress as soon as pos-
sible. Such responses as were made to this recommendation
were probably of no great value, and are almost wholly lost.

The Articles of Confederation, as reported by John Dickin-
son in July, 1776, provided for a triennial enumeration of the
inhabitants of the States, such enumeration to be the basis of
adjusting the " charges of war, and all other expenses that

1 New York Colonial MSS., Vol. V. p. 459. * Ibid., p. 777.

45 8 THE NINTH CENSUS.

should be incurred for the common defence or general >yel-
fare." The eighth of the Articles, as they were finally adopted,
provided that these charges and expenses should be defrayed
out of a common treasury, to " be supplied by the several
States, in proportion to the value of all land within each State,
granted to or surveyed for any person, as such land and the
buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated, accord-
ing to such mode as the United States, in Congress assembled,
shall from time to time direct and appoint." The ninth Ar-
ticle gave Congress the authority ** to agree upon the numbers
of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its
quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such
State." These Articles unquestionably contemplated a national
census, to include a valuation of land and an enumeration of
population, but they led to no substantial results. When the
blanks in the revenue report of 1783 were filled, the committee
reported that they had been compelled to estimate the popu-
lation of all the States except New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, and Maryland.

The next step is to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
The charter of government framed by that body provided for
a national census to be taken decennially. Moreau de Jonnis,
a distinguished French writer on statistics, refers to this con-
stitutional provision in the following elevated language : J* The
United States presents in its history a phenomenon which has
no parallel. It is that of a people who instituted the statistics
of their country on the very day when they formed their gov-
ernment, and who regulated, in the same instrument, the census
of their citizens, their civil and political rights, and the destinies
of the country."^ De Jonn^s considers the American census the
more remarkable because it was instituted at so early a date by
a people very jealous of their liberties; and he gives emphasis
to his statement by referring to the heavy penalties imposed by
the first law of Congress to carry these provisions into effect.
It must be confessed, however, that the American founders
looked only to practical ends. A careful search through the
Madison Papers has failed to show that any member of the
Convention considered the census in its scientific bearings. But
the Convention gave us an instrument by which those ends can
be reached, thus building wiser than they knew. In pursuance

1 lElements de Statistiquc, (Paris, 1856,) p. 173.

THE NINTH CENSUS. 459

of the requirements of the Constitution, an act providing for an
enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States was passed,
March i, 1790.

As illustrating the growth of the American census, it is worth
observing that the report of the first census was an octavo pam-
phlet of fifty-two pages, and that of 1800 a folio of seventy-eight
pages. Let these pamphlets be compared with the census pub-
lications of 1850 and i860.

On the 23d of January, 1800, a memorial of the American
Philosophical Society, signed by Thomas Jefferson as its Presi-
dent, was laid before the Senate. In this remarkable paper,
written in the spirit and interest of science, the memorialists
prayed that the sphere of the census might be greatly extend-
ed ; but it does not appear to have made any impression on the
Senate, for no trace of it is found in the annals of Congress.

The results attained by the first six censuses were meagre for
the purposes of science. That of 1790 embraced population
only, its single schedule containing six inquiries. That of 1800
had only a population schedule with fourteen inquiries. In
1 810, an attempt was made to add statistics of manufactures,
but the results were of no value. In 1820, the statistics of
manufactures were again worthless. In 1830, the attempt to
take them was abandoned. In 1840, there were schedules of
population and manufactures, and some inquiries relating to
education and employments.

The law of May 23, 1850, under which the seventh and
eighth censuses were taken, marks an important era in the his-
tory of American statistics. This law owes many of its wisest
provisions and the success of its execution to Mr. Joseph C.
G. Kennedy, under whose intelligent superintendence the chief
work of the last two censuses was accomplished. This law
marks the transition of the American census from the merely
practical to the scientific stage. The system thus originated
needs correction, to make it conform to the later results of
statistical science and to the wants of the American people.
Nevertheless, it deserved the high commendations passed upon
it by some of the most eminent statisticians and publicists of
the Old World. While recognizing the great relative merits of
the last census, it is also evident that the important advances
made in social science, and the great changes that have occurred
in our country during the last decade, require a revision of the

46o THE NINTH CENSUS.

law. To this end, I shall examine the principal defects in the
methods and inquiries of the existing law, and shall point out
the remedies proposed in the pending bill.

I. Defects in the present Method of taking the Census.

1. The work of taking the census should no longer be com-
mitted to the charge of the United States marshals. These
officers belong to the judicial department of the government ;
are not chosen with a view to their fitness for census taking or
any statistical inquiry; and, whether so qualified or not, the
greatly increased duties devolved upon them by the revenue
laws, the bankrupt laws, and other legislation, since the last
census was taken, make it more difficult now than ever before
for them to do this work and do it well ; and in the popular
mind they are so associated with arrests and seizures, that their
census visits will create uneasiness and suspicion.

The unequal size of territory embraced in their several dis-
tricts leads to an unequal and unwise distribution of the duties
of supervision, and this injuriously affects the uniformity,
promptness, and efficiency of the work. One is charged with
the supervision of all the census work in Massachusetts, with
its 1,250,000 inhabitants; while another superintends a district
embracing but one half of Florida, and a population of 70,000;
and still another has but one third of Alabama, and a population
of 320,000.

There are sixty-two judicial districts and as many marshals.
Thirty-three of the States and Territories compose each a
single district. Ten States contain two districts each, and three
arc divided into three districts each. This is not only an un-
equal distribution of duty, but the growth of the country has
-made many of the districts too large for any one man to per-
form thoroughly and expeditiously the work of supervision.

2. Too much time is allowed in taking the census and pub-
lishing its results. The law of May 23, 1850, allows five months
in which to make the enumeration and make the returns to
Washington, and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to ex-
tend the time in certain cases. It contains no provision con-
cerning the time of publication. As a consequence, the main
report for 1850 was not printed till 1853, and the volume relat-
ing to manufactures was not printed till 1859. The preliminary
report of i860 was not printed till 1862; the full reports on

THE NINTH CENSUS. 461

population and agriculture were delayed till 1864, and Uiose
on manufactures and mortality till the end of 1866.

It has been strongly urged that the enumeration should be
made in a single day ; and the example of England is cited to
show that it is practicable. But it must be remembered that
the inquiries made in the British census are very few in number,
and almost exclusively confined to facts of population. Gen-
eral statistics are not provided for in their census. Again, the
small extent of territory to be traversed and the density of the
population make it possible to carry out a plan there which
would prove a disastrous failure here, with our vast areas and
sparse population> The census is our only instrument of
general statistics, and must be more elaborate than that of
countries having permanent statistical bureaus; and, as our
^numeration is not of the actual but of the legal population, a^
longer time, say one month, can safely be allowed.

3. Another important matter (which affects also the question
of time) is the present objectionable method of obtaining the
population statistics. The census-taker calls on a family, and
spreads before them his array of blanks, which they then see for
tile first time. Suspicions of his inquisitorial character must be
allayed ; fears that it is an assessment for purposes of taxation,
must be quieted ; the subject must be explained ; the memories
of the family stimulated, and the data they furnish criticised;
and recorded. A very capable gentleman, who was an assist-
ant marshal in i860, has estimated the average time required
for each family, exclusive of travel, at thirty minutes. Thus an
honest day's work would accomplish the enumeration of not
more than twenty families.

Far more important than the waste of time is the inaccuracy
which must result from this method. It is not reasonable to
suppose that a family can, in half an hour, make anything like
a complete and accurate statement of a great number of details
to which they have not previously given any special attention.

4. The operations of the Census Office, under the present
law, are not sufficiently confidential. The citizen is not ade-
quately protected from the danger, or rather the apprehension,
that his private affairs, the secrets of his family and his business,
will be disclosed to his neighbors. The facts given by the mem-
bers of one family may be seen by all those whose record suc-
ceeds them on the same blank ; and the undigested returns at

462 THE NINTH CENSUS.

the central office are not properly guarded against being made
the quarry of book-makers and pamphleteers.

5. The rule of compensation is arbitrary, complicated, and of
doubtful wisdom. One rule is followed in paying the officers
and employees at the central office ; another, for the marshals ;
and still another, for the assistant marshals.^ One principle of
compensation is adopted for enumerating the inhabitants ; an-
other, for taking the statistics of industry ; another, for mileage ;
and still another, for copying returns. It has been charged, on
what appear to be reasonable grounds, that these rules offer
temptations to exaggerate some parts of the returns, and to
make constructive charges, which swell the expenses to an un-
reasonable degree. It should be added, that the great change
which has occurred in prices and wages since the passage of
the law makes the rule inapplicable to the present condition of
affairs.

To remedy these defects, this bill provides that the enumera-
tion shall be made by persons chosen for their special fitness
for such work, and in no way connected with the national con-
stabulary, or with the assessment or collection of taxes. The
districts should be much smaller than they now are, — so small
that one man may intelligently arrange the work, designate
census-takers, of whose qualifications and fitness he may easily
have full knowledge, and personally supervise and unify all the
work within his jurisdiction. The Congressional district seems

1 The law of 1850 thus defined the compensation of the census-takers: —
** That each assistant shall be allowed as compensation for his services after the
rate of two cents for each person enumerated, and ten cents a mile for necessary
travel, to be ascertained by multiplying the square root of the number of dwelling-
houses in the division by the square root of the number of square miles in each
division, and the product shall be taken as the number of miles travelled, for all pur-
poses, in taking this census.

" That in addition to the compensation allowed for the enumeration of the in-
habitants there shall be paid for each farm, fully returned, ten cents ; for each
establishment of productive industry', fully taken and returned, fifteen cents ; for
the social statistics, two per cent upon the amount allowed for the enumeration of
population ; and for each name of a deceased person returned, two cents."
In his remarks of April 6, 1869, Mr. Garfield read the following letter : —
" Sir, — The rule which has been adopted for the compensation of officers for
the taking of the census does not appear to me to have any sound foundation in
reason, and to be obviously inconsistent with fact. It might easily be perverted to
false uses, and I should regard it as wiser and safer to introduce a system of com-
pensation which was made dependent upon the good judgment and experience of
faithful and intelligent supervision.

" Benjamin Peirce, Supt. U. S, Coast Survey**

THE NINTH CENSUS. 4^3

to be the most convenient and appropriate unit of classification
for the States ; and each Territory may properly, as under the
present law, constitute a district.

Separate schedules, at least for the household, the farm, and
for manufacturing, commercial, and other industrial establish-
ments, are to be distributed before the day to which the enu-
meration relates, so that the people may be familiarized with
the inquiries made, and that, as far as possible, the blanks may
be filled up without the aid of the census-taker. This will
insure greater correctness, and will greatly reduce the time
required for the enumeration. By the use of these schedules,
and the organization provided in the bill, it is believed that the
enumeration may actually be completed in one month, begin-
ning on the 1st of June.

We propose to put into the law, and into the official oath of
all officers and employees of the bureau, a provision that the
returns of the census shall be confidential, that the business of
no citizen shall be made public, and that the returns of money
values shall not in any way be made the basis of taxation, nor
be used as evidence in the courts. These provisions of the law
should be printed on the schedules, and the President should
issue his proclamation, calling upon all the people to aid in
making the returns as full and accurate as possible. A liberal
compensation, in the simple form of salary or per dietfty with no
mileage or constructive charges, is provided, and the time dur-
ing which persons may receive compensation is carefully re-
stricted. A sufficient clerical force is provided in the Census
Office at Washington to tabulate, condense, and arrange the
whole for publication within two and a half years after the
returns are in. The results ought to be published in a form
considerably more condensed than in the last report.

II. Defects in the Inquiries prescribed in the Population and
Mortality Schedules of the present Law.

I. As numbered in the census of i860, the first three sched-
ules relate to statistics of population and mortality, of which
the second has exclusive reference to slaves. We are now hap-
pily one people, and need but one population schedule. All
the inquiries retained from the three have been entered on the
family schedule, and, dropping the nine inquiries of the slave
schedule, other important ones have been added without greatly

464 7WS NINTH CENSUS.

increasing the aggregate number. None of the inquiries of the
first and third schedules have been wholly omitted, but several
have been modified. That relating to color has been made to
include distinctively the Chinese, so as to throw some light on
the grave questions which the arrival among us of the Celestials
has raised.

2, The committee believe that the value of the inquiry in
regard to persons attending school will be greatly enhanced by
requiring the enumerator to enter under that head the grade
of the school, whether a common school, academy, college, or
professional school. This has been done on the schedule re-
lating to educational institutions. By the old law the registra-
tioo of those who c^mnot read and write is required only ia
cases of persons twenty years of age and upward. Tim r^^
tration has been extended to persons fifteen yesirs (rid. It it
more important to know how many illiterate persons tiiere art
between the agea of fifteen and twenty than at any later period;
for between ten and twenty it is usually determined ndicdMr
an education ia guned or lost.

3. The last column of the first schedule has been so amended
as to exhibit more fully the physical force of the population of
the country. The war has left us so many mutilated men, that
a record should be made of those who have lost a limb, or who
have been otherwise disabled ; and the committee have added
an inquiry to show the state of public health, and the preva-
lence of some of the principal diseases. Dr. Edward Jarvis, of
Massachusetts, one of the highest living authorities on vital sta-
tistics, in a masterly paper presented to the committee, urged
the importance of measuring as accurately as possible the effect-
ive physical strength of the people.

It is not generally known how targe a proportion of each
nation is wholly or partially unfitted, by physical disability, for
self-support The statistics of France show that, in 1851, in
a population of less than 36,000,000, the deaf, dumb, blind,
deformed, idiotic, and those otherwise mutilated or disabled,
amounted to almost 2,000,000. We thus sec that, in a coun-
try of the highest civilization, the effective strength of its popu-
lation is reduced one eighteenth by physical defects. What
general would venture to conduct a campaign without ascer-
taining the physical qualities of his soldiers, as well as the
number on his rolls? In the great industrial battle which this

I

THE NINTH CENSUS. 465

nation is now fighting, we ought to take every available means
to ascertain the effective strength of the country. Besides the
inquiries in these schedules that have been amended, a few new
ones have been added.

Since the present census law was passed, an International
Statistical Society has been organized ; and some of the pro-
foundest scholars of Europe and America have united to give
it authority and efficiency in the treatment of social questions.
At several of its sessions the subject of national censuses has
been very ably and elaborately discussed, and recommenda-
tions have been made looking to greater efficiency and uni-
formity both in methods and inquiries. A collation and
comparison of the personal statistics of twenty-seven modern
states and nations show that, in all these states, there have been
thirty-three different inquiries made in regard to population.
From these the International Congress selected eight, which
they recommended to all nations as indispensable for purposes
of general statistical science, and seven others, which they
urged the use of whenever it was practicable. Two of the
inquiries urged by the Congress as indispensable are not in
our old schedule of population, but are here added. One is the
relation of each person to the head of the family, — whether
wife, son, daughter, boarder, servant, etc. ; and the other is the
civil or conjugal condition of each person, — whether single,
married, or widowed. These elements are the leading factors
which determine the power and value of the family as a social
and producing force, and in them are infolded the destiny of
the nation.

It has been strongly urged, and with good reason, that to the
inquiry for the birthplace there should be added an inquiry for
the birthplaces of the father and mother of each person. This
would enable us to ascertain the relative fecundity of our Ameri-
can and foreign-born populations. It has lately been asserted
that the old ratio of increase among our native population is
rapidly diminishing. If this be true, such a vitally important
fact should be ascertained, and its full extent and significance
determined. An inquiry concerning parentage was accordingly
inserted in the schedule by the committee.

An inquiry was also added in regard to dwelling-houses, so

as to exhibit the several principal materials of construction, as

wood, brick, stone, etc., and the present value of each. Few
VOL. I. 30

466 THE NINTH CENSUS.

things indicate more fully the condition of a people than the
houses they occupy. The average home is not an imperfect
picture of the wealth, comfort, refinement, and civilisation
of the average citizen. The census ought to show us how
comfortable a place is the average American home, and how
great a physical and social force is the average American
citizen.

4. Two other inquiries not in our schedules were suggested
as advisable ; namely, the language spoken and the religion pro-
fessed by each person. But in a nation whose speech is so
nearly one the first is hardly needed, in addition to the light
that will be thrown upon this question by the record of nation-
ality, and the second might be deemed an uncalled for imperti-
nence; and the committee therefore omitted them.

5. I shall conclude the discussion of personal statistics with
one further statement.

The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the national
Constitution have radically changed our representative system,
and provided for a redistribution of political power. By the
former, two fifths of those who were lately slaves are added to
the representative population ; by the latter, the basis of repre-
sentation for each State is to be determined by finding the whole
number of male citizens of twenty-one years of age whose right
to vote is denied or abridged for any other reason than partici-
pation in rebellion or other crime, and reducing the whole pop-
ulation in the ratio which the number thus excluded bears to
the whole number of adult male citizens.

The census is our only constitutional means of determining
the political or representative population. The Fourteenth
Amendment has made that work a difficult one. At the time of
its adoption, it was generally understood that the exclusion ap-
plied only to colored people who should be denied the ballot
by the laws of their State, But the language of the article
excludes all who are denied the ballot on any and all grounds
other than the two specified. This has made it necessary to
ascertain what are in fact the grounds of such exclusion, and
the Census Committee have compiled from the constitutions
and laws of the several States a record of exclusions from
the privilege of voting, othenvise than on account of rebellion
or other crime, which may be stated io nine general classes,
as follows ; —

y

THE NINTH CENSUS. 467

1. On account of race or color, 16 States.

2. On account of residence on lands ceded by the State to

the United States 2 **

On account of residence in State less than required time

(6 different specifications) 33 "

On account of residence in county, city, town, district, etc.

(18 different specifications) 25 "

3. Wanting property qualifications, or nonpayment of taxes

(8 specifications) 8 "

4. Wanting literary qualifications (2 specifications) ... 2 *'

5. On account of character or behavior (2 specifications) . 2 "

6. On account of services in army or navy i "

7. On account of pauperism, idiocy, or insanity (7 specifi-

cations) 21 "

8. On account of certain oaths required as preliminary to

voting (2 specifications) 4 **

9. Other causes of exclusion (2 specifications) 2 "

After much reflection the committee could devise no better
way than to add to the family schedule a column for recording
those who are voters, and another with this heading, copied sub-
stantially from the amendment : " Citizens of the United States,
being twenty-one years of age, whose right to vote is denied or
abridged on other grounds than rebellion or crime." It may be
objected that this will allow the citizen to be a judge of the law
as well as the fact, and that it will be diflScult to get true and
accurate answers ; I can only say this is the best method that
has been suggested.

Dr. Jarvis presented to the committee an able argument in
favor of taking the actual as well as the legal population of the
country. While I acknowledge the scientific value of such an
enumeration, yet it is evident that, to take it with sufficient accu-
racy, the enumeration must be made in so short a time as to
endanger the fulness and accuracy of answers in the other
schedules, and the two results thus obtained would greatly com-
plicate and increase the diflSculty of determining the represent-
ative population.

III. The Agricultural Schedule.

The committee gave to this schedule a very careful and pro-
tracted consideration. The schedule recommended by the Com-
missioner of Agriculture contained two hundred and forty-six

468 THB NINTH CENSUS.

columns of inquiries. After repeated revisions and a>Bsideni^
tions of the material presented, the conmiittee settled upon a
schedule which contained seventy-three columns, to which a
few others have been added by the House, and which is, I ven*
ture to claim, a great improvement on the schedule of the old
law, which contained forty-eight inquiries. The additions macte
in this bill may be classified as follows : —

1. An mquiry to show by what tenure the occupier holdi his turn,
whether as owner or tenant

2. An extension of the present classification of lands as improved or
unimproved, so as to exhibit separately the acres cultivated and not txir
tivated, and the acres of woodland and of uncultivated pasture.

3. An inquiry into the value of form buildings other than dwdb^
houses.

4. An inquiry into the total value of all labor eiqiended <hi the &im
during the year.

5. An inquiry into the average number of cows milked dming die
year.

6. A separate exhibit of the cheese made on the &nn and that ma^
at &ctories.

7. Instead of the present exhibit of the aggregate value of all slaugh-
tered animals, a separate statement of the value of slaughtered cattle,
hogs, and sheep.

8. A statement of the value of all the poultry on the fEirm, and the
value of its product during the year.

9. In addition to the statistics of wine produced, a statement of the
value of grapes sold which were not made into wine.

10. A statement, as regards all the principal crops, of the acreage as
well as the amount of product.

The importance of this last element cannot be overestimated.
Without it, we cannot learn the yield of the several products in
different localities, and the increase or decrease of that yield at
different periods. It is well known, for example, that the centre
of the wheat product has been rapidly moving West, but its
track and rapidity of movement cannot be traced without know-
ing both the acres sown and the bushels produced.

The bill omits from the schedule water-rotted hemp. Hemp
is not thus treated in this country, as in 1850 it was supposed it
would be. It omits also the silk culture, which has not fulfilled
the promise of the days of Moms multicaulis.

It is believed that the schedule, amended as above suggested,
will enable us to ascertain the elements of those wonderful

THE NINTH CENSUS. 469

forces which have made our country the granary of the civil-
ized world; will exhibit also the defects in our agricultural
methods, and stimulate our farmers to adopt those means which
have doubled the agricultural products of England since the
days of the Stuarts, and have more than doubled the comforts
of her people. The extent of that great progress can be seen
in such facts as these: that " in the reign of Henry VII. fresh
meat was never eaten even by the gentlemen attendant on
a great Earl, except during the short interval between mid-
summer and Michaelmas,"^ because no adequate means were
known of fattening cattle in the winter, or even of preventing
the death of one fifth of their whole number each year; that
Catharine, queen of Charles II., sent to Flanders for her salad,
which the wretched gardening of England did not sufficiently
provide.

Russia alone of European states makes any considerable sur-
plus contribution to the food of the world. The United States
must continue to be the main source of supply. The fact stated
by Mr. S. B. Ruggles, delegate of the United States to the In-
ternational Statistical Congress which met at the Hague in Sep-
tember last, is of startling importance, — that in 1 868 the whole
of Europe, with a population of 296,123,293 souls, produced ce-
reals to the amount of 4,784,5 16,604 imperial bushels, or sixteen
bushels to each person ; while the United States during the same
year, with a population of 39,000,000, produced 1,405,449,000
bushels, or thirty-six bushels to each person.

IV. Statistics of Industry,

This schedule, the fifth of the series in the old law, has per-
formed exceedingly valuable service to the country and to statis-
tical science. It is said to be the first of its kind ever successfully
used in any national census ; but it can be improved in several
particulars.

I. There are two serious defects in the heading of the first
column, which reads as follows: "Name of corporation, com-
pany, or individual producing articles to the annual value of
$500." .

The first defect is in the word "articles," which has been
construed to mean merchantable articles, or such products of
manufacture as can be done up in packages and sold over the

1 Macaulay*s History of England, Vol. I. p. 236.

470 THE NINTH CENSUS.

counter as merchandise. A large proportion of all the products
of industry cannot thus be handled. The carpenter, mason,
plasterer, plumber, painter, builders of ships, cars, bridges, etc.,
all perform most valuable labor, and their products are houses,
buildings, and structures of all kinds, — a most important part
of the fixed capital of the nation ; but these cannot be called
" articles " in the restricted sense in which the word is employed
in tlic schedule. A plumber in Washington has lately finished
a single job amounting to $20,OCX3, but he has produced no
" article" which would be entered in the schedule, A job of
genera] repairs, however extensive, would not be entered. This
defect has been remedied by requiring, in addition to the value
of articles produced, an exliibit of the value of jobbing and re-
pairing done within the year.

The second defect in this heading is the limitation of $500.
He must be a very small manufacturer whose annual product,
including materials, is not more than $500. A shoemaker who
should make but two pairs of boots per week would show a
product of more than that amount. And yet it is manifest from
the returns themselves that the products of the great majority
of artisans were not enumerated in i860. For example, the
eighth census showed that there were in the United States
140,433 manufacturing establishments, but the products of the
industry of only 7,1 1 5 were reported. The population schedule
exhibited in its inquiries concerning occupation the number of
persons belonging to each trade, while but a small per cent of
the product of their industry was reported in the industrial
schedule. The following table exhibits the great deficiency in
this respect: —

Number reported in the Population Schedule as belonging to the following
Trades.

Coopers 43,624

Blacksmiths 112,357

Carpenters 241,958

Painters SI7695

Number of the same Trades the Product of whose Industry was reported
in the Industrial Schedule.

Coopers 'iiTSO

Blacksmiths 15,720

Carpenters 9,006

Painters gi«

THE NINTH CENSUS. 47 1

/Vr cent reported.
Coopers 31.5

Blacksmiths • 14

Carpenters 3.7

Painters i.8

We propose to remedy this defect by making establishments
the unit of enumeration. Wherever there is a manufactory or
shop in operation, its occupants are required to give the facts
called for in the schedule. This will include the product of all
manufacturers and artisans except those at work as journey-
men, and in almost every instance the latter and their work will
be included under the inquiry concerning laborers employed
in the establishment. It is believed that these changes will
greatly increase the completeness and value of the results ob-
tained.

In noticing the defects of the heading of this column, I am
strongly reminded of the statement of Moreau de Jonnfes, that
two monosyllables in the instructions to the French census-
takers, added by a subordinate in the statistical bureau, de-
stroyed the whole value of the French census of 1836.

2. The inquiry in reference to motive power has been so
modified as to give the specific kinds, as steam, water, etc.,
and the total power reckoned in horse-power. It is a matter of
growing importance to know how the labor of society is being
distributed ; to ascertain what part is performed by the muscle
of man, and what by the use of machinery. To secure this
more fully, a statement of the kind and number of machines,
such as looms, spinning-jennies, etc., has also been added.

3. In reference to labor and wages, the committee thought it
would be useful to state separately the number of persons la-
boring in an industrial establishment who are owners or part-
ners, and the number of those who work for wages.

4. An important class of products, belonging to what the Ital-
ian government has appropriately called " extractive industry,"
has hitherto been wholly neglected in our census, and should be
provided for. I refer to the products of our mines and fisheries,
and to petroleum. No further proof of the propriety of this
addition is needed than the fact that last year our coal mines
must have yielded 30,000,000 tons, our iron mines 4,000,000
tons, while from our oil wells was exported over 100,000,000
gallons of petroleum, in addition to vast consumption at home.

472 rME NINTH CENSUS.

The Schedule of Industrial Statistics, with the amendments pro-
posed, can be used for petroleum and the products of miQes,
and a special schedule has been added for fisheries.

V. Siaiisiks of Internal Commerce.

In the preliminary law of March 3, 1849, the Census Board
was directed to prepare a schedule of trade and commerce,
but no such schedule appeared in the law of 185a It has beoBi
the habit to treat the exchangers of wealtib^-tfae middlemen
who transport and buy and sell -* as belonging to the unpro-
ductive class. But an enlightened political economy mil rec^
ognize all as producers of wealth who give value to commodities
by bringing them witibin easy reach of tibe consumer, and aid in
facilitating exchanges. According to the census of i860, Ihore
were in the United States 13,340,000 men and women above
nineteen years of age; and there were 227,177 persons set
down in the list of occujpations as persons engs^ed in trade, or
one in fifty-eight of the adult population of the country. There
can be no adequate defence for omitting this large and intelli-
gent class of the community from the records of national
industry.

1. A simple and comprehensive schedule for all persons en-
gaged in trade was laid before the Census Committee by Gen-
eral Francis A. Walker, of the Treasury Department, and has
been made a part of this bill. It follows the general plan of the
Industrial Schedule in regard to labor and wages, and requires,
in addition, a statement of the amount of capital invested in
trade, and the gross annual amount of purchases and sales.

2. Without adding to the duties of the enumerators, the bill
requires the Superintendent of the Census at Washington to
procure full statistics of railroad, lake, river, and canal trans-
portation, exhibiting, among other facts, the number of persons
employed, the amount of freight and cost of transportation.
Such inquiries in regard to railroads are now made in Ohio by
authority of the legislature, and the results are exceedingly
valuable. The bill also requires full statistics of express and
telegraph companies, and of life, fire, and marine insurance
companies.

Now that the great question of human slavery is removed
from the arena of American politics, I am persuaded that the
next great question to be confronted will be that of corpora-

THE NINTH CENSUS. 473

tions, and their relation to the interests of the people and to the
national life. The fear is now entertained by many of our best
men that the national and State legislatures of the Union, in
creating these vast corporations, have evoked a spirit which may
defy their control and escape, and which may wield a power
greater than that of legislatures themselves. The rapidity with
which railroad corporations have been consolidated and placed
within the grasp of a few men during the past year is not
the least alarming manifestation of this power. Without here
discussing the right of Congress to legislate on all the matters
suggested in this direction, the committee have provided in this
bill for arming the Census Office with authority to demand
from these corporations a statement of the elements of their
power and an exhibit of their transactions.

3. We have also provided for full statistics in regard to
the business of fire and marine insurance. It is reported in
the columns of a journal published by the insurance institu-
tions, that there is at the present moment in this country
$3,092,000,000 of insurance against fire and marine losses.
Since the census of i860 was taken, the life insurance business
of the country has grown up from almost nothing to enormous
proportions. For instance, there were in i860 but seventeen
life insurance companies in the United States, and fifty-six
thousand and some odd policies in force. In 1868, the statis-
tics of that year being the latest I have, there were fifty-five life
insurance companies, with 537,594 policies in force, amounting
to the enormous sum of $1,528,000,000. Now, whether these
companies are sound or not, whether the people may rely upon
the safe investment of the money which they have put into their
hands, will altogether depend upon the way in which they are
conducting their business ; and we propose by this bill to bring
out the facts so that the country may see what are the opera-
tions of these great corporations.

VI. Social Statistics,

Under this head there were forty-eight inquiries in the old law,
several of which in practice proved almost worthless. Those
concerning taxation and the aggregate value of real and of per-
sonal estate, the character of the seasons and the crops, and the
rate of wages for the different kinds of labor, failed to produce
results which were considered worthy of publication in the final

474 THE NINTH CENSUS.

report. In the pending bill, some of these inquiries are omitted
altogether, and the others are placed in other schedules, where
they are more likely to be answered. Besides these modifica-
tions, several additions have been made to this branch of the
census.

1. A more extended schedule for educational institutions has
been provided, which will call for, not only the number of teach-
ers and pupils in our common schools and other institutions of
learning, but also the total amount of money which the nation
has permanently invested in education, together with the annual
amount paid for its support.

2. The inquiries concerning churches and religious worship
have also been somewhat extended, so as to obtain a report of
the amounts of money permanently and annually invested in
religious enterprises, and also the number of children in Sun-
day schools under the supervision of churches. In the inqui-
ries concerning libraries a column has been added, which will
exhibit the annual cost of the maintenance and increase of those
institutions, and another showing the date of their establish-
ment, from which may be learned the increase of the aggregate
number.

3. In the statistics of newspapers and other periodicals, the
committee propose an important modification, which requires
the Superintendent of the Census to obtain a copy of each news-
paper and periodical in the United States, together with a state-
ment of its circulation. From the papers themselves can be
gathered all the important facts which it is desirable to know
concerning this kind of industry, and the copies thus obtained
are to be classified and bound up for preservation in the archives
of the government. What would we not give for a similar collec-
tion for each decade since the foundation of the government?
What more striking exhibit of the country's progress in this
respect could be made?

I am painfully conscious of the imperfections of this measure,
and I am quite sure that no gentleman, who has not given spe-
cial attention to the matter, is likely to appreciate the difliculty
of framing a complete and satisfactory bill on the subject. I
may be permitted to say that the sub-committee gave to the
subject many weeks of careful study; and in presenting this
bill as the result of their labors, although aware of its imper-
fections, they confidently believe it is a great improvement on

THE NINTH CENSUS. 475

the present law, and trust that it will be made the basis of still
greater improvement in coming decades.

It must be borne in mind that, if our national statistics are to
be taken with completeness, we must lay more stress on the
Census than do the states of Europe. They have bureaus of
statistics permanently established and under the direction of ex-
perienced statisticians ; with us such a bureau is still a desidera-
tum. The great advantages attending such an establishment
are thus forcibly stated by Dr. E. M. Snow, the eminent statis-
tician of Rhode Island, in a letter addressed to the Census Com-
mittee : —

" I sincerely hope that, in the statute organizing the census of 1870,
provision will be made for the establishment of a permanent census
bureau ; or, better still, (notwithstanding one failure,) a permanent statis-
tical bureau. The reasons for this are perfectly conclusive to all who are
acquainted with the collection and compilation of statistics. The great-
est defects in all our censuses have been owing to the want of knowledge
and of experience in those employed upon them. We are almost desti-
tute of men in this country, except in three or four States, who are
familiar with the practical duties required in taking a census. The whole
country needs educating on this subject; A permanent bureau, with an
efficient head, would soon organize a corps of men in each State, who
would be familiar with the information to be obtained, and with the best
methods of obtaining it.

" On the score of economy, also, a permanent bureau would be the
cheapest. With a corps of clerks educated in the best methods of doing
their duties, and with trained men to obtain the information, and by mak-
ing use of local officers and other sources of information in different
States, I am perfectly confident that a permanent census bureau could
obtain all the information now obtained by. a decennial census, except
that relating to population, and could obtain it every year, with no greater
expense than is now required to obtain it once in ten years. The effi-
ciency and economy, in statistical matters, of men familiar with their
duties, are greater beyond comparison than of men who are ignorant of
these duties.

" A permanent national bureau of statistics is also very much needed
to systematize the whole subject, to give information to all portions of the
country, and to take the lead in the organization of similar bureaus in
the several States. WTien such bureaus become general in all the States,
the national government will be able, with their assistance, to obtain all
the statistics now obtained by the national census, and much more, far
more frequently, far more correctly, and with much less expense." *

1 Letter to the Select Committee on Census of 1870, dated February 16, 1869.

We have already a Commissioner of Mining Statistics, some
provisions in the Treasury Department for financial statistics,
a Bureau of Education whose chief function is to collect educa-
tional statistics, and some attention is given to statistics ia tiie
Department of Agriculture. It is greatly to be regretted tliat
these statistical forces have not been consolidated, the scope of
their work enlarged, and the whole thoroughly oi^ranized ; all of
which could be done at an expense not greatly increased. But
at this late day it is manifestly impossible to oi^anize and equip
a permanent statistical bureau in time to take the next census;
and hence, regret it as we may, we must again depend wholly
on die Census Office.

The American census should furnish a muster-roll of the
American people, showing, as far as it is possible for figuies to
show, their vital, physical, intellectual, and moral power; it
should provide us with an inventory of the nation's wealth,
and show us how it is invested; it should exhibit the rela-
tion of population to wealth, by showing the distribution of
the one and the vocations and industries of the other. The
Ninth Census of the United States will be far more interest-
ing and important than any of its eight predecessors. Since
1850, in spite of its losses, the republic has doubtless greatly
increased in population and in wealth. It has taken a new posi-
tion among the nations. It has passed through one of the most
bloody and exhaustive wars of history. The time for reviewing
its condition is most opportune. Questions of the profoundest
interest demand answers. Has the loss of nearly half a million
young and middle-aged men, who fell on the field of battle or
died in hospitals or prisons, diminished the ratio of increase
of population? Have the relative numbers of the sexes been
sensibly changed? Has the relative number of orphans and
widows perceptibly increased ? Has the war affected the distri-
bution of wealth, or changed the character of our industries?
And, if so, in what manner and to what extent? What have
been the effects of the struggle on the educational, benevolent,
and religious institutions of the country? These questions, and
many more of the most absorbing interest, the census of 1870
should answer. If it do not, the failure will reflect deep dis-
grace on the American name.

THE CANVASS IN OHIO.

SPEECH DELIVERED AT MOUNT VERNON, OHIO,

August 14, 1S69.

MR. Chairman and Fellow-citizens, — I am glad that
the campaign begins, so far as you and I are concerned,
on so pleasant an occasion, and under such favorable circum-
stances; that you are comfortably seated, and ready to con-
sider calmly and without passion the issues of the campaign
now opening ; and I trust that we shall deliberate to-night not
so much in the spirit of partisans as of men who are inquir-
ing what are the wants and interests of our country. Of course
it cannot be left out of sight that there are in Ohio two great
political parties that have put forth their doctrines, and entered
the field to contest before you the merits of the various points
on which they differ. To discuss these differences, and their
relations to the situation of the country, is my purpose to-night.
In the outset, fellow-citizens, I call your attention to the very
peculiar political situation in which the Democratic party
is now placed; I desire to say that I wish that that party
might be just as good, true, pure, and worthy a party as possi-
ble. I do not rejoice when the Democratic party acts badly,
and is found unworthy. I wish they might be so true and so
worthy that it would make but little difference to the country
which of the two parties should come into power. I wish that
party was so patriotic in all its doctrines and aspirations that it
might exert a beneficial and salutar}'- influence on the policy
and conduct of the Republican party, so that if we went astray,
or took up any false doctrines, or in any way became untrue to
the people, the Democratic party might chastise us by taking
our place and serving the State more worthily than we had
done. I am therefore grieved to see the Democrats in this cam-

478 THE CANVASS IN OHIO.

paign taking positions so revolutionary that, in my opinion, it
would be a vast calamity to the country should they get into
power. Believing this, I desire to call your attention to their
attitude at the present time.

In the first place, fellow-citizens, the Democratic party at-
tempted in this campaign to take what they called " a new de-
parture." Their old leaders had been meeting with a series of
terrible and crushing defeats, and the thoughtful men of the
party saw that a change in the line of march was their only
hope. From 1 860 onward, every step the Democracy has taken
has led to defeat. Last summer I know that the wisest men in
that party felt, and did not hesitate to say, that it was absolutely
impossible for them to succeed unless they changed their line of
march. An attempt was made in the New York Convention
last year to move in a new direction, and try the chances of suc-
cess by the nomination of Salmon P. Chase; in which purpose
they came very near succeeding. The purpose at that time was
to wash from the Democratic party the stains which the Rebel-
lion left upon it. In view of their known sympathy with the
Rebellion, their known hostility to our party in putting down
the Rebellion, their stout resistance to every measure to over-
throw slavery and build up freedom in the country, the most
thoughtful and philosophic men in the party said, *' We must
wash away these stains; wc must forsake the old party, must
strike out a new course, and let the dead past bury its dead."
And they came very near to taking up this new line of march in
their attempt to nominate Chief Justice Chase; but they failed
to make that nomination, and of course they failed in the elec-
tion, as they had been doing for eight years.

This year the Democracy of Ohio, smarting under accumu-
lated defeats suffered at our hands during the last decade, re-
solved that they would indeed take ** a new departure." When
they met in Columbus on the 7th of July last, notwithstanding
their old leaders were there, notwithstanding a large part of the
Convention favored the nomination of Mr. Pendleton for Gov-
ernor, and another large part favored the nomination of Judge
Ranney or some other well-known leader of the old school,
yet so deeply was the party penetrated with the conviction
that on the old line and with the old leaders nothing but
defeat awaited them, that a majority of the Convention broke
the slate, turned their backs upon their old leaders, and, in the

THE CANVASS IN OHIO. 479

hope of washing away the stains of the past, nominated a dis-
tinguished Union General of the late war, whom they believed
to be personally disaffected toward the President of the United
States and toward the Republican party. This was a great rev-
olution in the Democratic party ; it was not only a revolution,
but it was an acknowledgment that defeat lay in the old direc-
tion, and that their only hope was in a new line of march under
a new leader. This leader was General W. S. Rosecrans.

For General Rosecrans personally I have none but words of
kindness. I love to speak of him as a friend, — as a man who
has done much for his country during its great struggle, — as a
man who, by his personal valor and by his clear conception of
the nature of the Rebellion, achieved a reputation and made a
record which will always form an in^portant part of American
history. And I desire to say that I could not believe that he
would accept the nomination. However great his personal dis-
agreements might have been, however much he may have been
ahenated from any men or set of men in the Republican party,
he could not, with the least regard to his own history, have
accepted the nomination.

There were men in our army who fought gallantly, simply be-
cause they believed it to be their duty to obey orders. Though
these orders may have been distasteful to them, though the
object for which the war was waged may have been obnoxious
to them, yet when their superior officers commanded, they
obeyed as a matter of soldierly honor. General Rosecrans was
not a man of that sort. His opinions were all convictions. He
was intensely right or intensely wrong, but never indifferent. I
knew but few men who from the very beginning of the war saw
more clearly into the heart of the Rebellion, and hated it with
more intensity, than General Rosecrans. He looked upon the
Rebellion as a crime which sapped the very foundations of the
Union, and upon the leaders of the Rebellion as personal crimi-
nals in the eyes of God and man.

Not only were these the views he held concerning the Rebels
themselves, but he held stronger and more decided convictions,
if possible, concerning all men here in the North who in any
degree sympathized with them. I trust that during those days
I sufficiently felt and expressed my hostility to those men who
not only refused to help put down the Rebellion, but did all in
their power to stop the progress of those who were putting it

compared ^M
'Me GeoeraX ^M

480 Tff£ CANl'ASS IN OHIO.

down ; but all my utterances were tame and gentle 1
with his. Read his scorching letter addressed to the (
Assembly of Ohio in 18G3, in which he denounces in the most
unmeasured terms those men who talked about " peace on any
terms." And nobody had any doubt about whom he referred
to. The Cincinnati Enquirer quoted his language at the time,
and said, "We accept this as referring to us; we so understand
it, and shall treat the writer accordingly."

On the subject of slavery, what general during the whole war
was more decided in his convictions than General Roi
No sooner had the Proclamation of Emancipation been issued,
than he at once used all his authority to carry it into execution. .
It was looked upon as a bnitum fulmert. The people of the
South said, " We have our slaves; let Mr. Lincoln proclaim as
much as he pleases, we will keep them." Not three days had
elapsed after the proclamation was issued before General Rose-
crans was giving certificates of freedom to all slaves within his
department, and enforcing their right to freedom. And no one
of his officers will forget, when a Kentucky major offered his'
resignation " because the President of the United Slates had
meddled with slave property," how fiercely that officer was re-
buked, and how severely he was punished, by being dishonora-
bly dismissed from the service.

Who will forget the promptness with which he sent beyond
his lines that Democratic leader, ValJandigham, who had been
tried and convicted as an enemy of his country?- Nor will the
officers at the head-quarters of the Army of the Cumberland
forget that on the 14th of October, 1863, when a citizen of Ohio
was leaving for home. General Rosecrans said, "Tell them that
this army would have given a stronger vote for Brough, had not
Vallandigham's friends over yonder killed two or three thousand
Ohio voters the other day at Chickamauga."

The only fact in General Rosecrans's career that could have
endeared him to the Democracy was his personal hostility to
General Grant, and his unfortunate negotiations with the Rebel
generals at White Sulphur Springs last year. But in view of
his record and his war doctrines, the Democratic party could
not in any other way more absolutely have abandoned their old
paths, so far as leadership was concerned, than by his nomina-
tion. In doing that they grasped at their only hope of success,
feeble as it was. Fortunately for his fame, he declined the nomi-

I

i

THE CANVASS IN OHIO, 481

nation, and the Democracy, thus thrown into utter confusion,
turned back to their old defeated leaders, and resumed the
beaten track that has for nine years led them to almost uniform
defeat. The nomination of General Rosecrans was an enormous
confession, the full significance of which can be understood only
when we look at the man and his career in contrast with the
career of Mr. Pendleton, whom they have now nominated. In
Mr. Pendleton they have a man who made it a point of honor
to do nothing to help forward the war, — who from the beginning
to the end of his Congressional career has left a record wherein
is not written one line that indicates his sympathy with the
Union cause as against armed rebellion. He is a leader of the
old regime, — their proper leader in this campaign.

I suppose it is not reasonable to expect such a conversion
as Saul of Tarsus experienced on his way to Damascus. We
cannot expect such a change all at once in a political party.
Though the Democracy tried to take up *' a new line of depart-
ure," so far as the choice of a candidate was concerned, they^
did not complete the work by making a platform to suit They
did, however, omit their usual talk about the war. They did!
not say a word against the draft, not one word about " Lincoln's
hirelings," not one word about '* the hellish crusade against the
South " ; they left all that off, to make it possible that a Union
General might be their leader. But in all other respects sub-
stantially the same old doctrines are retained in their platform.
Instead of attacking the war, they content themselves with at-
tacking the results of it. Hitherto we have found them attack-
ing the war, and the men and measures employed in carrying it
on ; now we find them attacking only the results. I wilt notice
only a few points in their platform.

First, we find them attacking the public debt. Everybody
knows they hate the debt. They hated it from the beginning,
not so much because it was a debt, as because it means the war ;
because it means restored liberty ; because it means a crushed
rebellion ; because it means slavery abolished ; because it
means freemen everywhere ; because it means all the suffering,
all the heroism, all the honor of the war, expressed in the form
of a national obligation. The debt meaning all thiis, it is the
most natural thing in the world that the Democracy should
hate it. They hate all who produced it, and the product itself;
and so the first resolution is this : " That the exemption from

VOL. I. 31

482 THE CANVASS IN OHIO,

taxation of twenty-five hundred million of dollars in govern-
ment bonds and securities is unjust to the people, and ought
not to be tolerated, and that we are opposed to any appro-
priation for the payment of interest on the federal bonds until
they are made subject to federal taxation."

Think of that for a moment. I wish the Democratic party
would not make it necessary for us to dispute with them on
matters of fact. Why do they say twenty-five hundred mil-
lion of dollars of bonds, when they know perfectly well that,
with the bonds of all sorts and the volume of greenback cur-
rency added, the whole debt does not reach that sum? Why do
they say this, when they know the bonds of the United States
are five hundred million dollars less than that sum? They think
the mass of the people are not well informed in regard to these
things, and that this exaggerated statement will carry more
force than the truth. Their platform begins with this reckless
misstatement, which they know to be such every month when
they read the official statement of the public debt.

They are opposed to paying the interest on the public debt
until the bonds are taxed ; yet every intelligent man among
them knows that the Constitution of the United States makes it
impossible for the States to tax these bonds. They know it has
been decided, over and over again, from Chief Justice Marshall
down to Chief Justice Chase, that it cannot be done. If every
State in the Union should pass laws to tax the bonds, not one
cent would be collected. They know this, and yet they say they
are not willing that the interest shall be paid, until that uncon-
stitutional and impossible thing shall be done. This absurd
thing our Democratic legislature of last winter attempted, and
that, too, with a full knowledge of its absurdity. But some one,
perhaps, will say they mean that the general government itself
shall tax them. I answer, that the government does tax the
income on these bonds, as it taxes incomes on the products of
the manufacturer, and other industry.

Look a little further. In their second resolution they declare
that they still indorse the old Pendletonian plan of paying off
the bonds in greenbacks ; and that, if their payment in gold is
persisted in, it will lead to repudiation. They know perfectly
well that that issue was tried last November throughout the
United States, and decided against Mr. Pendleton and in favor
of the honest payment of those bonds ; and they say that de-

THE CANVASS IN OHIO. 483

cision is going to bring about repudiation. This resolution is,
in my judgment, the forerunner of proposed repudiation, and
can mean nothing else.

I desire to call attention, for a moment, to this doctrine of Mr.
Pendleton, which has given him such a conspicuous place during
the past two years. His proposition was, that the interest which
the government was paying on these bonds could be saved by
paying off the debt in greenbacks; and to save interest, of
course the bonds must be taken up soon. Now, fellow-citizens,
every man of intelligence knows that there are just two ways to
do that thing. One is, to print enough greenbacks to take up
the bonds ; the other is, to tax the people sufficiently to collect
greenbacks enough to give to the bondholders in lieu of their
bonds. If you adopt the second plan, you must tax the people
enormously. To take up the bonds in any reasonably short
space of time, you must tax the people more heavily than they
have ever yet been taxed.

Put the question to any Democrat, or to Mr. Pendleton, " Are
you in favor of heavily increasing the taxes in order to carry
out this scheme?" If he says, "Yes," hold him to it, and ask
your fellow-citizens if they want the taxes thus increased. If
he says, ** No," then there is but one other way to do it : that is,
to print off about fifteen hundred million dollars of greenback
notes, and with them take up the bonds and set the notes afloat.
Now, you may tell Mr. Pendleton and his friends that he is com-
pelled to adopt one of these plans. So far as their feasibility
and safety are concerned, it makes but little difference which is
adopted. Either leads to measureless financial calamity. Issue
fifteen hundred millions of greenbacks, and you will reduce the
value of every paper dollar in the United States to ten cents or
less, and it may well be doubted if a greenback dollar would be
worth even that amount. Issue such an amount and you de-
range values everywhere, raise prices everywhere, and throw
the whole country into the direst confusion ; and yet the states-
manship of Mr. Pendleton compels us to do that, or to crush
the business of the country by a great increase of Federal
taxes. I shall be obliged to Mr. Pendleton, should the words
I speak be seen by him in the Cincinnati papers, if he will tell
the country how it is to escape one of these calamities.

I need say no more on that subject. Mr. Pendleton's theory
was repudiated by the Democratic party at the New York Con-

^

484 THE CANVASS IN OHIO.

vention last year. Instead of him, a man was nominated who
only a few days before, at the Cooper Institute, denounced
Mr. Pendleton's theories as utterly unworthy the confidence o[
the people. Upon that denunciation, which was made with
great clearness and force, Mr. Seymour was nominated in place
of Mr. Pendleton. But the Democracy of Ohio is now at-
tempting to foist upon the people the very candidate whom the
Democracy of the whole Union then refused to indorse.

I ask your attention briefly to the fourth resolution of their
platform, not intending to discuss it, but to point out a pecu-
liar feature of it: "Resolved, that we denounce the present
high protective tariff, enacted in the interests of the New
England manufacturers, for its enormous imposition of duties
on salt, sugar, tea, coffee, and other necessaries, as oppressive
especially upon the people of the West," etc.

For the present, we must raise a large revenue, and the reve-
nue we arc raising arises largely from duties on imports. But
the Democracy think that it is in the interest of New England
to have a protective duty on salt, sugar, coffee, and tea. Did
anybody ever before hear of New England producing tea.
coffee, sugar, and salt? or that in order to grow tea and coffee,
manufacture salt, and grow cane and make sugar. New England
must have a high protective duty on these articles, and that
thereby the West is suffering by this oppression on the part of
New England? Now if anybody will tell me what intelligent
financier drafted that resolution, I shall be glad to make his
acquaintance, and inquire of him in what part of New England
those things are produced. No one of the financiers who man-
aged the tax bills and appropriation bills of the Ohio legisla-
ture, last winter, could have been the author. Fellow-citizens,
when the necessity for a large revenue is lessened, it will be time
enough to discuss the abolition of protective duties. There are
many particulars, no doubt, in which changes are needed in our
customs laws, — some duties are excessive and unwise ; but the
meaning of this resolution is past all comprehension.

Let me call your attention to the clause in the fourth resolu-
tion with reference to the hours of labor of the workingman,
and to that other clause about public lands to actual settlers, —
the homestead doctrine. Have the Democracy forgotten that
from 1850 to i860 the Republican party was fighting for the
homestead law, and was always voted down by the Democratic

THE CANVASS IN OHIO. 485

party? Have they forgotten that in i860 the Republican party
passed a homestead bill, which was vetoed by James Buchanan,
and which they were not strong enough to pass over his veto?
Have they forgotten that it was not until we had a Republican
President that such a law was made, and then in spite of the
almost solid vote of the Democratic members? Have they for-
gotten that we created a homestead policy, under which homes
are springing up all over the Territories of the West? They
cannot have forgotten these things ; but now, seven years after
the thing is done, the Democratic party of Ohio puts a resolu-
tion in their platform, declaring that they are in favor of using
the public lands for free homes for the people. Well, I am not
sorry to see the Democratic party for once right. The nearer
they are right, the better it is for the country, and I congratulate
them that they have announced their conversion to this Repub-
lican doctrine of the homestead law.

For the laboring man they feel a yearning they have never
felt before. The Democratic party is now yearning over the
interests of the laboring man. How was it when the laboring
men were termed the ** mudsills of society," — when they were
called the " filthy operatives," the " greasy mechanics," the
"hard-fisted farmers struggling to be genteel "? That was the
language of the Democracy only twelve years ago. And now
that the Republican party has been taking the workingman by
the hand, and doing for him, in spite of the Democratic party,
whatever has been done for him by legislation, — now, in 1869,
the Democratic party is in favor of the rights of the working
man, — just now when they want his vote.

But there is another doctrine here to which I desire to call
your attention. I will read the third resolution entire. It is
this : " Resolved, that we denounce the national banking sys-
tem as one of the worst outgrowths of the bonded debt, in
that it unnecessarily increases the burden of the people thirty
millions of dollars annually, and we demand its immediate
repeal."

Fellow-citizens, I do not know of any time or place in the
campaign when it is safer to make a dry speech than now and
here, when an intelligent audience like this is comfortably
seated, and can bear more than when they are wearied by a
long campaign. As chairman of the Committee on Banking
and Currency in the House of Representatives, it has been

486 THE CANVASS IN OHIO.

my duty to consider* the condition of the national banks, and
compare them with the system of banking that preceded
them; and I ask your indulgence while I call attention to
what it is that the Democratic party propose to have imme-
diately repealed.

The national banking system was established by the Thirty-
seventh Congress, in 1863, and has been in operation a little
more than five years. On the 24th of May, 1864, tliere were in
the United States and Territories 1,617 national banks in oper-
ation, having a capital of $420,000,000, and a circulation of
$292,202,598, with $3,615,387 of State bank notes still outstand-
ing. Wliethcr these institutions should be maintained or not
depends upon the soundness, safety, uniformity of value of their
notes, and the security which the people have against deprecia-
tion and failure.

I. Security. The prompt redemption of the notes of the
banks is secured as follows; —

1st. By $338,000,000 United States bonds (fifteen per cent
more than the whole circulation) deposited by the banks in the
vaults of the Treasury at Washington.

2d. By a first and paramount lien on all the assets of the
banks.

3d. By the personal liability of all the shareholders to an
amount equal to the capital.

4th. By the absolute guaranty of the government to redeem
at the national treasury, if the banks fail to do so.

The efficiency and safety of these banks is still further pro-
tected by the cash reserve, which they must keep constantly on
hand, to the amount of about twenty per cent of their circula-
tion. On the 24th of May last, that reserve actually amounted
to $132,000,000.

It will be seen that the notes are secured by nearly four times
their amount. Their security is demonstrated by the fact that,
in all cases in which national banks have failed, theirnotes have
never fallen in value, but in several instances have sold at a
premium.

II. Uniformity. Instead of seven thousand kinds of notes,
differing in form, security, and value, as under the old State
bank system, we now have ten varieties of notes, uniform in
all these respects. No man stops to inquire whether a national
bank note was issued in Maine or Arkansas. Like our flag.

THE CANVASS IN OHIO. 487

it bears the stamp of nationality, and is of equal value in every
part of the Union. With such unity and simplicity of system,
the people have but a short lesson to learn in order to protect
themselves against counterfeits. The uniformity has practically
abolished rates of exchange between the States, and most of
the vast sum paid under the old system to bankers and brokers
for the transmission of funds is now saved to the people.

III. Convertibility. These notes are convertible at the will
of the holder into United States Treasury notes, and whenever
the government returns to specie payments the banks must
keep abreast with the government, and will be powerful auxilia-
ries in that work. When they redeem their notes in gold, the
principle of free banking may be added to the law, and thus
remove from them all the characteristics of monopoly, and
enable the wants of the country to regulate the volume of the
currency.

It ought to be remembered also that the national system is
greatly superior to the old in this, that all the affairs of the
banks are made public in frequent reports, and by a system of
rigid examinations.

There are many points in which the system can and should
be amended, and it should be subjected to the severest scru-
tiny; but I do not hesitate to claim for it a great superiority
over any and all systems hitherto adopted in the country.

The only specification made against the system by the Dem-
ocratic Convention is that it costs the people $30,000,000 an-
nually. What is the pretext for this statement? How is this
estimate made? From the fact of the notes being based on
$338,000,000 of interest-bearing bonds? These bonds would
be in existence and draw interest from the Treasury if the banks
did not exist. Is it that the banks have the use of $292,000,000
circulation, without interest? Would the fact be otherwise if
the State banks were restored ? On any theory, how does the
Convention figure up its thirty millions?

Whatever may be the advantage which the banks reap from
their privileges, our Democratic friends would have us believe
there is no advantage on the side of the people. Let us see.
Besides furnishing the nation with a sound, safe, and uniform
currency, they do no small share of the work of bearing the
burdens of the nation. In the year ending January i, 1868,
these banks paid taxes as follows : —

488 THE CANVASS IN OHIO.

United States tax, a, 7S percent £9,515,000

State tax a.oS per cent 8,813,000

Total , . , 4.83 percent 18,338,000

The capital of the national banks of Ohio was $22,500,000.
and in that year they paid into the treasury of the United
States $514,000, and into the treasury of Ohio $521,000. What
other interest in Ohio paid so large a per cent of tax? The
stock of these banks is taxable under State laws. AboHsb
them, as the Democracy recommend, and all their bonds pass
into a form which the State cannot tax.

IV, The banks are fiscal agents of tlie government They
have served the government as fiscal agents in disposing of
government stocks, and receiving and transmitting public funds
as they were collected by the officers of the internal reve-
nue, thus saving a great expense. In his report for 1866 the
Secretary of the Treasury says that up to that time these banks
had " collected for and paid into the Treasury amounts aggre-
gating, in receipts and payments, $3,500,000,000, for which, had
they been allowed only one tenth of one per cent commissions,
they would have received about $3,500,000. These services
were rendered to the government free of charge."

I make no other defence of the system than the statement of,
the facts. If the banks need improvement, amend the law ; if
they charge usurious interest and oppress the people, punish
them; but do not plunge us back into the old chaos from which
this law has rescued us.

But some one may say, " We don't believe in banks at all ;
let us not have any of them." There is no civilized country on
the globe that has not banks and paper money. In England, a
hard-money country if there be one in the world, no man who
travels carries much gold in his pocket He carries Bank
of England notes. In France, with her $200,000,000 of idle
gold locked up in the vaults of a single bank, where it has lain
for years, bank-notes are the currency of the country, except for
change. In all countries the necessity of a paper currency is
acknowledged. We never have been without one. Every State
has had its paper money, whether Whigs or Democrats were in
power. The question, then, is not between the present system
of banks and no banks, but between this system and the old
system ; and when the Democracy propose to blot this out of

THE CANVASS IN OHIO. 489

existence, I ask them to tell us what they would put in its place.
Some will perhaps say, Issue greenbacks, and supply a currency,
directly from the Treasury. Every government has at some
time or other considered the question of issuing paper notes to
supply the people with currency, but every country holds the
proposition unwise and dangerous. No human legislation is
livise enough to adapt such a currency to the wants of trade, nor
virtuous enough to withstand the temptation to lighten taxes by
increasing the volume of paper money. It does not become
^e Democracy to advocate such a policy.

That party boasts, and justly so, of having established the
Subtreasury system in 1846, which provided that the govern-
ment money should not be kept in the banks, but in the treas-
uries of the government, and that State bank paper should
no longer be received in payment of public dues. What does
this proposition of the Democratic party to abolish the national
banks mean? It can mean but one thing, — the restoration of
the old system of State banks which prevailed in 1863. Now
this is a question that comes home to the business interests of
every citizen, and at the risk of being tedious I shall call your
attention to the system from which we have been rescued. Let
me briefly run over the history of banks in the United States.

No man fails to remember the terrible condition into which
our fathers were plunged by the Continental currency. They
did not hesitate to declare that all the evils of the war, except
the loss of life, put together, were not equal to those that sprung
from the Continental money. Issued in vast quantities, it de-
preciated step by step until one thousand dollars would but
buy a dollar in gold, — until a wagon-load would scarcely pay a
man's board for a month. To free the country from these evils
the Continental Congress, in 1781, resumed specie payments,
and, under the lead of Robert Morris, established the Bank
of North America, more than half of the stock of which was
taken by the government. So slight was the authority of the
nation then that for greater safety a charter was procured from
the State of Pennsylvania as well as one from the Congress.
The bank was well managed, and performed valuable services
to the country during the closing years of the war, and until
the Constitution was adopted. After it ceased to be a United
States bank, it continued its organization as a State bank, and is
now in vigorous life under the National Banking Law.

490 THE CANVASS IN OHIO.

In 1 79 1, under the lead of Alexander Hamilton, Congress
established the first United States Bank. Washington signed the
bill, in opposition to the opinions of Jefferson and Randolph.
The law authorized a central bank to be established in Philadel-
phia, with branches in other places. Its capital was ten millions
of dollars, one quarter coin, and three quarters United States
stocks. One fifth of the stock was to be held by the govern-
ment, and five of the twenty-five directors were appointed by
the government. Whatever may have been the opinions of our
fathers in regard to the wisdom of the measure, it has become
a part of our history that this bank gave the country a paper
currency always convertible into coin, and in soundness and
uniformity far superior to any it had before possessed. By
means of it, Hamilton was enabled to carry out his masterly
scheme of funding and reducing the public debt. The charter
of this bank expired in 1811, and the bill for its renewal was
defeated by the casting vote of the President of the Senate.

Then followed five years of chaos. No man can read the
history of the war of 18 12-15 without perceiving the fact that
not only the currency of the country, but the finances of the
government, were to a great extent abandoned to the mercy
of banking corporations, which everywhere sprang up, and
flooded the country witli irredeemable and worthless paper.

In 1 816, under the lead of Madison and Dallas, the second
Bank of the United States was established, with a larger capital
than the first, but based on the same general principles.
Though this bank did not drive the State banks out of the field,
yet it will not be denied that during its twenty years of exist-
ence the people never lost a dollar by the depreciation of its
notes, and that it powerfully aided the government in reducing
the public debt. As the debt was finally paid off in 1836, there
was no longer a pressing necessity for paper money, so far as
the government was concerned, and the Democratic party re-
fused to recharter the bank. There were features in its plan
which could not be defended ; but it was perfection itself
compared with the system which preceded and followed.

From 1836 to 1863 the government practically abandoned all
efforts to regulate the paper money of the country. Though
the Constitution plainly forbids any State to " emit bills of
credit, or make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in
payment of debts," yet the Democratic party, by its refusal to

THE CANVASS IN OHIO. 491

furnish a paper currency to the country, permitted the system
of State currency to develop and engender evils, the like of
which can scarcely be found in the records of civilized nations.
From these evils we were rescued by the National Banking Act
of 1863; and now the Democracy of Ohio propose to plunge
us back into them by the absolute repeal of that act.

Between these two systems, the State and the National, the
people are called upon to choose. The Democratic party elect
the former, the Republican party the latter. Let us compare
their merits by the fruits they have borne ; and in making this
comparison, let us remember that the qualities of a good paper
currency are, —

1st. That it shall be based on ample security.

2d. That it shall be of uniform value throughout the country.

3d. That it shall be convertible into coin at the will of the
holder.

Of course, no system of paper money can possess the last-
named quality during a general suspension of specie payments.
We have seen what the National system is, and I will ex-
hibit the State currency in its best condition, with all the
improvements and safeguards which half a century of experi-
ence had thrown around it.

On the 1st of January, 1862, there were in the United States
1,496 banks that issued circulating notes. Their aggregate cap-
ital was $420,000,000, and their circulation was $184,000,000.
They were established under the laws of twenty-nine different
States, granted different privileges, subjected to different re-
strictions, and their circulation was based on a great variety
of securities, of different qualities and quantities. In some
States the bill-holder was secured by the daily redemption
of notes in the principal city; in others, by the pledge of
State stocks; and in others, by the coin reserves. But as
State stocks differed greatly in value, all the way from the re-
pudiated bonds of Mississippi to the premium bonds of Mas-
sachusetts, this could give no uniformity of security, and the
amount of coin reserves required in the different States was
so various as to make that kind of security almost equally
irregular. It required the study of a lifetime to understand the
various systems. There were State banks with branches, inde-
pendent banks, free banks, individual banks, banks organized
under a general law, and banks with special charters. They

492 THE CANVASS IN Off/0.

represented all varieties of condition and credit They were
solvent, suspended, closed, wound up, broken, according as the
fluctuations of trade, and the wisdom or folly, the honesty or
rascality, of tlicir managers dictated. Their notes had no uni-
formity of valut, and nearly all of them — especially in the West
and South — lost heavily in current value when carried beyond
the limits of the State, I remember that in Massachusetts, in
1855, 1 could get but ninety-four cents on the dollar for a note
of the State Bank of Ohio, which at home was convertible into
gold.

Examinea Baok-Note Reporter for 1862-63, and consider the
mass of trash there set down as the paper currency of the
country. In November, 1862, the circulation in the loyal States
was $167,000,000. The State securities for this amount were
only $40,000,000, leaving over $120,000,000 inadequately pro-
vided for. In only nine of the States did the law require the
circulation to be secured by State bonds. In the State of Illi-
nois, from 185 1 to 1863, the failures of banks numbered eighty-
nine, and their paper ranged from thirty-eight per cent to
one liundrfd per cent below par. Of the $12,000,000 of bank
circulation in Illinois, the people lost two or three millions
directly, besides the indirect loss of as many millions more by
derangement of business and ruin to private interests. Of ten
suspended banks in Minnesota, the notes were reduced to an
average of less than thirty cents on the dollar. Of thirty-six
broken banks of Wisconsin, only six redeemed their notes at so
high a rate as eighty cents on the dollar. Even as early as 1 860,
a time of great commercial prosperity, the official report of only
eighteen States showed 147 banks broken, 234 closed, and 131
worthless. Such was the condition of 512 banks, the whole
number in those States being 1,231.

But there was one class of paper issues which must not
be overlooked, — the vast circulation issued by counterfeiters.
There were in circulation, in 1862, about seven thousand differ-
ent kinds of notes, issued by the fifteen hundred banks. From
statistics carefully compiled, it was ascertained that there were
in existence that year over three thousand varieties of altered
notes, seventeen hundred varieties of spurious notes, and over
eight hundred varieties of imitations. Thus, it appears, there
were more than five thousand five hundred varieties of fraud-
ulent notes in circulation ; and the dead weight of all the losses

THE CANVASS IN OHIO. 493

occasioned by them fell at last upon the great mass of the
people who were not expert in such matters. There were, in
1862, but two hundred and fifty-three banks whose notes had not
been altered or imitated.

Let it be remembered that for nearly half a century a large
part of the revenues of the general government were received
in the notes of these State banks, in all stages of discredit and
depreciation, and with all the attendant risks of counterfeited
and altered bills. It is a fact worthy of remembrance that in
1 8 19 the Secretary of the Treasury was compelled to borrow
half a million of dollars to meet a foreign debt of that amount;
and at that moment there was $22,ooo,cxx) of surplus funds in
the national Treasury, out of which he could not cull enough
current funds to meet the demand.

With many independent and rival organizations tinkering at
the currency, it was impossible that any salutary control could
be exercised over either its quality or quantity. Here and
there were found good banks and wise management ; but, taken
as a whole, the system was totally unmanageable. Violent con-
tractions and expansions of the currency were frequent and
inevitable. In 18 18, the Secretary of the Treasury declared
that in three years the currency had been reduced from
$110,000,000 to $45,000,000, — a reduction of over fifty-nine
per cent. In 1834, there was $95,000,000 in circulation. In
1837, ^he volume had risen to $149,000,000, and before
the end of the year it fell to $116,000,000. In 1841 there was
$107,000,000; but at the end of 1842, but $59,000,000. In
1857 it had reached $215,000,000, its highest point of inflation
before the war; and on the ist of January, 1858, it had sunk
to $135,000,000, — a decrease of nearly forty per cent in twelve
months. Who can be surprised, in view of these facts, that the
periods here named were marked by those terrible financial
disasters which involved in common ruin the prudent and
the reckless, and made industry and wealth the sport of
chance? In every such crisis the laboring classes were the
greatest sufferers. The capitalists were generally able to fore-
see the danger and save themselves from the wreck.

What arithmetic will enable us to measure the losses which
this system has entailed on the American people? As a partial
illustration, I call attention to the report of the Bank Commis-
sioner of Ohio, made in obedience to a resolution of the Senate,

n

494 THE CANVASS IN OHIO-

showing the loss sustained by the people of the State during
eleven years, ending in iS43,from the failure of Ohio banks.
From the depreciated bills of nineteen broken banks the loss
was $1,405,895, and from the depreciation of their stocks,
$683,264. During the same period the cost of exchange, in
consequence of the unequal value of our currency, ranged from
one to twelve per cent, and the total amount paid for exchange
by the people of Ohio was $10,536,683. The Commissioner
concluded his report in these words : " It wilt be here recol-
lected that wc have not taken into the estimate the losses sus-
tained by foreign banks, and the vast amount of shinpjasters
which flooded the State during the suspension of specie pay-
ments. If these sums could be ascertained, wc should not hesi-
tate in saying that the losses sustained by the citizens of Ohio
during the last eleven years would more than double the capital
stock of the twenty-three banks doing business in 1S42, which
was $7,034,083.45, and go far toward the extinguishment of the
State debt."

In obedience to some resolutions of the Senate, adopted the
7th of January, 1841, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States made a report, showing that from 1789 to 1841 three
hundred and ninety-five banks had become insolvent, and that
the aggregate loss sustained by the Government and people of
the United States was $365,451,497. The report also showed
that during the ten years preceding 1841 the total amount paid
by the people of the United States to the banks, for the use of
them, amounted to the enormous sum of $282,000,000.'

Startling as these figures are, they fall far short of exhibiting
the magnitude of the losses occasioned by this system. The
financial Journals of that period agreed in the following estimate
of the losses occasioned by the commercial revulsion of 1 837 : —

On bank circulation and deposits #54,000,000

Bank capital failed and depreciated 248,000,000

State stock depreciated . .
Company stock depreciated
Real estate depredated

Total ?782,ooo,ooo

• The phrase " for the use of them " seems to have been suggested to Mr. Gar-
field by the third of the resolutiors of January 7, vLi. ; " What have the people
and government of the United Slates paid, directly and indirectly, to the aggre-
gate banks of the United States for the use of those imtitutioas annually for the
last tea years ? "

THE CANVASS IN OHIO. 495

To our Democratic friends who desire to return to the State
bank system, I commend the reading of the message of Gov-
ernor T. W. Bartley to the Legislature of Ohio of December 3,
1844, which states and powerfully exhibits the significance of
most of the facts to which I have just referred.

In striking contrast with this system, to which the Democrats
would have us return, the Republican party has created and
proposes to perfect and perpetuate the national banking sys-
tem, of which I have already spoken.

It will be noticed in the review I have made, that the Democ-
racy, by refusing to give the people a safe, uniform national
currency, have compelled them to resort to the wretched State
bank system, and though they have at times declaimed against
all banks, yet they have always, when in power, compelled the
people to suffer from the worst of all the systems. I commend
this subject to the good people of Ohio, with full confidence that
they will not permit the policy of the Democracy to prevail.

The charge is made against us Republicans, and it met us
everywhere last year, that we are increasing the public debt ;
that the burdens of the people are great; that the Democrats
wished to put us out of power and liberate the people from the
great burdens under which they are laboring. But even last
year we were doing something toward diminishing the public
debt, though the chief obstacle was the Democratic admin-
istration then in power at Washington. Our chief drawback
was Andrew Johnson and his office-holders. W6 had in the
Indian Department, in the Internal Revenue Department, and in
various disbursing departments of the government, an array of
corrupt officials, the like of which never before disgraced the
annals of the Republic. In our whole history it is scarcely
possible to find a record so dark as that of the Whiskey Ring.
During the last two years the nation has been disgraced, the
people demoralized, the treasury robbed, and the people out-
raged by men kept in office for partisan purposes. Take one
fact as an illustration. Six months before Andrew Johnson
went out of office, a man in Cincinnati is declared to have
offered $5,000 in order to get a whiskey inspectorship in Cin-
cinnati for the remainder of Johnson's term, when the salary of
that office was but $3,000 a year. And it made no difference
if charges were brought against this Ring, and they were con-
victed; the last act of Andrew Johnson as he went out of office

^

496 THE CANVASS IN OHIO.

was to pardon a set of tliievea and counterfeiters convicted
under the laws of the United States, Any change under such
circumstances must have been a blessing.

A man of your own city,^ whose honesty and ability are un-
doubted, was placed at the head of the revenue department,
and another man from our State, of whom we arc all proud,^
was placed at the head of the Interior Department, where he
has control of Indian affairs. Hundreds of thieves have been
turned out, the collection of the revenue has been honestly
made, and the public debt reduced. The Democratic statisti-
cian, Dclmar, who was employed last year by " three wise men
of Gotham " to make an estimate of the national revenues and
expenditures, stated that for the last fiscal year the revenue
would exhibit a deficit of $1 54,0x1,000. He estimated that the
expenditures would exceed $475,000,000, and the receipts be
less than $333,000,000. Instead of this, the expenditures were
$320,000,000, and the receipts over $370,000,000, showing an
actual surplus of $50,000,000. of which $35,000,000 accrued
during the last quarter, under the new administration. During
one of the years of Andrew Johnson, with a ta.t of two dollars
on the gallon of whiskey, only $13,000,000 was collected; now
we are receiving revenue at the rate of $50,000,000 per annum
from whiskey, and the tax is but fifty cents on'the gallon, with
special taxes, which make the total tax only about sixty-5ve
cents a gallon.

We can carry the comparison through all branches of the
revenue department, and show marked improvements since
the new administration came in. During the six months ending
the 1st of August, our public debt was reduced more than
$43,500,000. For the coming year, if there are no great draw-
backs, we may expect a surplus of $ioo,ooo,ooo, without any
increase of taxes. This will result from the honest collection
of the revenues, and the reduction of expenses in the several
departments of the government The savings in expenditures
for the coming year, as compared with those of last year, are
estimated at $2,000,000 for the army, $1,000,000 for the Post-
Oftice Department, and $20,000,000 for civil and miscellaneous
expenses. In view of these facts, what becomes of the charges
and accusations of the Democracy? Will they continue to
prophesy evil, while the administration is maintaining and en-
' Hon. Columbiu Delano. * Hon. J. D. Cox.

THE CANVASS IN OHIO. 497

hancing the public credit, and moving steadily forward toward
the payment of the public debt?

In another resolution of their State platform the Democrats
charge that we are oppressing some of the people in the South,
and that we propose to allow negroes to vote. When the Re-
publican party determined to preserve both liberty and union,
they resolved to realize the whole meaning of that first great
truth of the Declaration of Independence, ** That all men are
created equal." We have no right to liberty ourselves unless
we share it with all men. And I rejoice that, in looking over
the history of the war, we can recognize the hand of Almighty
God tracing out for us in blazing lines which could not be mis-
understood the declaration that justice to all was the price we
must pay for the Union. We fought two years with great dis-
aster and small success ; but when the Proclamation of Eman-
cipation was made, that very day the tide of battle turned. I
see before me many old soldiers of the Army of the Cumber-
land. They will remember with what darkness the sun went
down on the 31st of December, 1862, on the field of Stone
River. They will remember how our army had been driven
back, how our thousands lay slain on the field ; and they will
remember how, when the morning of the ist of January, 1863,
came, and the Emancipation Proclamation flashed over the
wires, our eagles were plumed anew, and the defeat at Stone
River was turned into a glorious victory. They remember that a
year before that date our cavalrymen had watered their horses
in the Tennessee, but had been driven back until they saw the
spires of Cincionati. They also remember that, under the Procla-
mation of Emancipation, the march of the armies of the Cum-
berland and the Tennessee was always forward, — forwardy
stepping in blood, it is true, but always carrying their eagles
to victory, until at last, on the shores of the Atlantic, joining
the victorious army of the East, they struck the final blow, and
the Rebellion perished.

Now, fellow-citizens, dare we, with so solemn, so impressive
a lesson as this, — dare we say that those men who helped us
save the republic shall have no share in its liberty, its protection,
and its citizenship ? As worthy men we dare not. The last act
in the great drama will be performed in a few months, when the
Fifteenth Amendment is adopted, and fixed forever in the fir-
mament of the Constitution. If, under the influence of the

VOL. I. 32

498

TffE CANVASS IN OfflO.

Democratic party, the State of Ohio shall not be honored by ■
aiding in that great and good work, it will still be done, even ■
without the help of Ohio. That amendment will be set among 1
the great lights in the firmament of our Const'tution ; and then,
fellow-citizens, looking up into our political heavens, we may i
say in truth, " There is and there shall be no night there."

If I read the signs aright, this campaign is the end, the ab- 3
solute end, of the old regime of Democracy. It tried to take 1
a new departure, but failed. Its only hope of life is to wash it» fl
hands, to wash its heart, and be cleansed throughout, so tliat^
its flesh shall become as the flesh of a Httlc child, and not the ■
leprous thing we have seen it for the last nine years. Then, A
fellow-citizens, when the party is thus purified, the citizens oil
Ohio may invite some son of that regenerated Democracy ton
the Governorship of the State ; then the people might feel that ]
in their hands the interests of the Sute and the republic would ]
be safe ; but until then they will not be trusted.

Nctte. — The views concerning- Majur General Roscci&os expressed
above were those that Mr. Garfield held from the time that he served
under that officer in 1863 to the Presidential campaign of 1880. An
interesting series of Garfield- Rosecrans documents will be found in the
Appendix to this volume.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON

VARIOUS OCCASIONS.

On the 14th of March, 1870, the House of Representatives being
in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having
under consideration a bill making appropriations to supply deficiencies
in the appropriations for the service of the government for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1870, and for other purposes, Mr. Garfield made a
brief speech which he entitled " Public Expenditures and the Civil Ser-
vice." In the first part of the speech he replied to attacks made in
the debate upon the Republican party on the score of prodigal and
corrupt expenditure, and then addressed himself to the improvement of
the civil service as a measure of administrative reform.

MR. CHAIRMAN, — I desire to call the attention of the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations ^ >Co a
measure of economy and reform to which he may, with great
propriety, direct his efforts, and in which, I have no doubt, he
will have the hearty co-operation of the President and the execu-
tive departments, and the gratitude of all good men. I refer to
our civil service. I shall not now enter that broad field which
my distinguished friend from Rhode Island^ has occupied, but
I call attention to the fact that our whole civil service is costing
us far too much. Secretary McCulloch once made this remark-
able statement: " If you will give me one half what it costs to
run the Treasury Department of the United States, I will do all
its work better than it is now done, and make a great fortune
out of what I can save." The same might be said of all our ex-
ecutive departments. And if there is one thing to which my
distinguished friend from Massachusetts can devote his atten-
tion with most marked results, with the applause of this House,
and of the whole country, it is the reorganization of these de-
partments.

' Mr. Dawes. * Mr. Jenckes.

SOO CJVIL SERVICE REFORM.

In the annual report of the Secretary of the Interior there
is a passage which should be commended to everj' member of
this House. That officer says that he can do the work of his
department with two thirds of the force which he now has
under his control, if you will only give him a reasonable and
wise organization. I quote his words: —

" The first measure of reform is to raise die standard of qualification,
make merit, a.s tested by the duty performed, the sole ground of promo-
tion, and secure to the faJthfid incumbent tlie same permanence of em-
ployment that is given to officers of Uic army and navy. Under the present
system, the general conviction among the tlerks and employees is that
the retention of their places depends much more upon the political influ-
ence they can command than upon energy or zeal in the performance
of duty. After a careful examination of the subject, I am fully per-
suaded that the measure 1 have suggested would have enabled this
department to do the work of the past fiscal year with a corps of clerits '
one third less in number tlian were found necessary," '

I believe I am right in saying that one half of all that great
army of clerks employed in the civil departments are engaged
in the mere business of copying; not in the use of judgment
or expert knowledge of business, nor the application of the
law to the adjustment of accounts, but to the mere manual
labor of copying, filing, or counting. Now, to do just such
work as this, men can be hired all over the country for six or
eight hundred dollars a year. Every business man knows that
he can get a good, efficient copying clerk at that rate. But,
without any rational organization, we are paying that whole
class of employees at least double what they can get elsewhere.
The whole business of civil appointments depends upon that
vague, uncertain, intangible thing called political influence.

Take the messenger service in these various departments. I
saw a man in one of the departments this morning whose whole
business is to sit at a door and open it when people come in
and shut it when they go out, and occasionally to run into an
■ office a few feet distant. Under our laws these messengers get
eight hundred dollars a year, and if they were to go to any
business man in this city they could not get half the money
from him for the same kind of service.

We employ common laborers in our executive departments,
to do work for which we pay them twice, or more than twice,
1 Report of (he Secretary of (he Interior, Nov. 15, 1369.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 50 1

as much as they can get anywhere else in the country where
they are paid* the current rate of wages. In doing so we de-
moralize the whole system of labor. We pick one man out
of a thousand and give him triple wages, thus making all the
rest discontented office-seekers. Now, who is at fault .in this?
Not the President of the United States, not the Secretary of the
Treasury, not the head of any department of this administra-
tion, — not any or all of these, exclusively or mainly. The fault
lies here, fellow-citizens of the House of Representatives, —
here, with us and our legislation. We make the laws ; we fix the
rate of wages ; we render workingmen discontented with ordi-
nary gains, by picking out and promoting in an unreasonable
and exceptional way the few men we hire, and they hold their
places at our mercy and at our caprice. They are liable at any
moment to be pushed aside for another favorite. Their service
is miserable because of its uncertainty. It tends to take away
their independence and manliness, and make them the mere
creatures of those in power.

We do all this ourselves ; we go, man by man, to the heads
of these several departments, and say, " Here is a friend of
mine ; give him a place." We press such appointments upon
the departments; we crowd the doors; we fill the corridors;
Senators and Representatives throng the offices and bureaus
until the public business is obstructed, the patience of officers
is worn out, and sometimes, for fear of losing their places by
our influence, they at last give way and appoint men, not
because they are fit for the positions, but because we ask it.

There, Mr. Chairman, in my own judgment, is the true
field for retrenchment and reform. I believe that we can, at
almost half the present cost, manage all these departments
better than they are now managed, if we adopt a judicious
system of civil service. There are scores of auditing and
accounting officers, heads of bureaus and divisions, there are
clerks charged with quasi judicial functions, through whose
hands pass millions in a day, and upon whose integrity and
ability the revenues of the nation largely depend, who are
receiving far less than the railroad, telegraph, insurance, man-
ufacturing, and other companies pay for services far less re-
sponsible. Such officers we do not pay the market value of
their services. When we find that the duties of any office
demand ability, cultivation, and experience, let a liberal salary

=CM*

cira. szjtvicE reform.

tK s*vca IB order go procure the sennccs of the best man ;
^ lot tbc tftere nunual duties of these ciirA. departmeats,
\%S i> j^i lUCD r«r the market prke.

\(.-«. «it. wlut do «~e sec? The Republican party ts not

«io4.>w){ tocwonj to niakc this needed change. The Demo-

(mU^ l'«Mt> •* *"*>* moWng fop*-ard to make it. We are cb-

Hf^kiift ihc* pfivilcsrcs, so called, and our political opponents

1^ «Mttiz^; imd watching and hoping for the time to come

%teik tfcvy CkUt do the same, — when we shall be out of power,

^jj-f tbcv sImU come >n, to do the same miserable \t'ork of

v^siiiit; .Mhl appointing which wc are called upon to do year

> . ,n Now, in the name of justice, in the name of

let us take hold of this matter, and sustain the

. V of the Interior in the kind of work which he is doing,

«ij Ik V JiU the other departments to follow his example.

S;^-ji«c vne may say, "That is very fine talk; show us the
u**;yw "' I will tell you about the practice. Tlie Patcnt-
V'th<-? of the Inlerior Department has during a whole year
^u vN.m<lucted in part on the plan I am here advocating. No
vuM, *v* fi" ** I know, has been appointed to service in that
^n■^,li^ o\ccpi on a strict competitive examination. The re-
imtt »■■» *'>•'' ^^'"^ see in the management of the Patcnt-OiRce
(UMkvHl I'tTiciency and economy. But what can a department
^i^ vih.n <-^^ 3 bureau do, with the whole weight of Congres-
ti^^HAl inllmnce pressing for the appointment of men because
^^h^y «n.' mir friends? In this direction is the true line of
»|*tc»n>ini^'iip. the true path of economy. I will follow cheer-
^t^' In <'"-■ steps of my distinguished friend whenever he
tv^h tvnv.ud genuine economy. Let us take this great subject
(U hAUil, iii'd it can be settled in a very few weeks.

l, 1870. The House having under consideration the sale of
\\-i. Garfield made some remarks on competitive examina-
louching upon the charges in circulation to the effect that
t le sold, he continued r —
KER, — This House will not have done its duty if
mediately, or as soon as practicable, reform this
less of appointing cadets to our academics. We
ve, in addition to what was done this morning, an
— and I think it is perfectly feasible to make such

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 503

an arrangement — that all appointments shall be made as the
result of district competitive examinations, at which all boys
resident in the district, of proper age, shall have an opportunity
to compete for a cadetship.

Now, if the House will indulge me for a minute longer, I will
give my own experience in this matter. My predecessor in this
House ^ instituted, — and I refer to it the more freely because I
did not originate it, — my predecessor, I say, introduced the
principle of competitive examination in the district which I
represent. I have followed it during the time I have been
Representative, and I desire to give the House in a word the
result of that experience.

In the first year that I came to this House, it happened that
there were two cadets to be appointed, one at the Military
Academy and one at the Naval Academy. Five gentlemen,
representing each of the counties in the district which I repre-
sent, consented to act as examiners, and meet at a central place
in the district. Printed notices were posted up in every post-
office, and publication was made in every newspaper in the
district, that, on a given day, all boys within the prescribed
ages who desired to go to either of the academies might pre-
sent themselves for examination. The result was, that there were
thirty-seven boys examined, and the best two were selected.
Those two boys achieved each the highest distinction in the
Military and Naval Academics when they graduated last fall,
and no one of the cadets who have been appointed from my dis-
trict since I have been a member of the House has fallen below
the first third in his class, and much less has one been rejected.
I know of several districts where a similar custom has prevailed,
with similar good results in every case so far as I know.

It is said that not thirty-four per cent of the boys who go to
West Point ever graduate. They fail for various reasons, but
many of them because they are picked up as mere representa-
tives of political favoritism. Now, I believe we shall not have
done our duty unless we go to the bottom of this matter, and
place all the appointments to these Academies on similar ground.^

^ Mr. John Hutchins.

2 On March 28, TS64, Mr. Garfield, by unanimous consent, introduced the follow-
ing Resolution : — " Resolved^ That the Secretary of War be directed to furnish this
House with any reports, or other information in his possession, in relation to a
plan for competitive examinations for admittance of cadets to the Military Acad-
emy at West Point."

504 CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.

At tbe second session of the Forty-second Congress, the Legislative^
Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Bill came back to the House
from the Senate with this amendment : " To enable the President of the
United States to perfect and put in force such rules respecting the Civil
Service as may from time to time be adopted by him, f 50,000/' The
House Committee on Appropriations recommended non-concurrence in
the amendment On the loth of April, 1872, Mr. Garfield said : —

Mr. Speaker, — I cannot allow this amendment to be acted
on without expressing my own opinions on the subject to which
it relates. I may say that on this amendment the committee
were equally divided as to concurrence or non-concurrence,
and I was in doubt how we ought to report. Perhaps, there*
fore, it is best simply to state the fact as I have done, to call
that the report of our action, and to appeal to the House for
the settlement of the question. For my own part, I desire the
Committee of the Whole to concur in this amendment of the
• Senate, and my first reason will be found in a simple narrative
of the facts in the case.

By an act of Congress not now a year old, the President
was empowered and directed to do whatever he could to se-
cure some measure of reform in the civil service of the United
States. In obedience to that law he appointed a commission of
gentlemen of high character, and directed them to examine the
whole subject. That commission have gone ov^er the ground,
have examined the condition of the civil service, and have
made an elaborate report, in which they point out what they
regard the evils, the great evils, the alarming evils, of our civil
service ; and they suggest to the President a series of measures
which they believe will aid in remedying these evils. In accord-
ance with their recommendation, the President has ordered a
body of rules to be prepared to regulate the civil ser\'ice, which
rules, when approved by him, he proposes to put in force.
That body of rules is now in preparation for the President's use.
What they will be, we do not know ; but before they are put
in execution they must receive the President's own sanction.
To carry out this purpose, and to pay the necessary expendi-
tures under the law, the President asks, and the Senate has
granted in this bill, an appropriation of $50,000.

The simple history of the case, it seems to me, makes it de-
cent and becoming, makes it reasonable and necessary, that the
House should accord with the Senate in granting an appropria-

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 505

tion for this purpose. It is due to the President, it is due to
ourselves and the law we have enacted, that a fair trial of the
attempt at reform should be made. On this ground, which of
itself I deem a sufficient one, I ask the House to concur in this
amendment.

Now I know, sir, that it is becoming very fashionable upon
this floor to sneer at civil service reform. I agree with what
many gentlemen say here in criticising some of the many
modes proposed for carrying out that reform; I agree that
some of the modes suggested arc Utopian, and possibly worth-
less ; I agree that many of the plans for reform would amount
to little or nothing ; but I affirm, as the result of much reflec-
tion, that the evil complained of is so deep, so wide, so high,
that some brave Congress must meet it, must grapple with it,
must overcome it, if we propose to continue a worthy and
noble nation. Of this I have no more doubt than I have that
the sun is circling in the heavens above us to-day.

Now, Mr. Chairman, without referring to any special theory
of civil service, I ask whether this committee is prepared to say
now to the President, to the Senate, and to the country, that we
do not propose to make any attempt whatever in the direction of
civil service reform; that we do not propose to expend a dollar
for that purpose ; that we propose definitely, and now, to put an
end to the attempt, and to say that the old mad whirl of office
brokerage, of coining the entire patronage of the United States
into mere political lucre, shall hereafter be the order of the
day, and that nothing shall be done to ennoble our public ser-
vice,— that no shield shall be interposed, — that the President
of the United States, the head of the administration, the head of
his party, and the chief of the nation, shall be told now to stop
all efforts to better the state of things, and let the wild dance go
on in the old way. I will not believe that such is the deliber-
ate purpose of this House.

Two days later (April 12th) Mr. Garfield returned to the subject as
follows : —

Mr. Speaker, — I have given away all but fifteen minutes of
the hour allotted me under the rules, and I desire in the time
left me to call the attention of the House to one other of the
pending amendments.

5o6 CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.

Some things have been said in the Committee of the Whole,
concerning the civil service reform, to which 1 wish to call the
attention of the House. The subject has been before the House
several times this session, and the country ought to know in
what spirit it has been treated by their Representatives.

Several weeks since the gentleman from Illinois^ made a
speech on this subject, which has been very generally read
throughout the country, and in which he very succinctly stated
his views of the nature of our civil service, and the uses to
which it ought to be put. He said: —

" It is a fundamental principle embodied in our glorious Constitution,
that the machtnery of this government may be pulled to pieces every
four years, and this principk has been put into practice all through ihe
history of this government every time a new administration came into
power General Grant to-day occupies the Presidential chair be-
cause the Republican party is the ' successful ' parly, and because the
offices belong to the suc^essfiil party,"

I admire courage even in a bad cause, and this is an example
of undoubted courage. It is the most frank, candid, and logical
assault that I have yet seen on the civil service reform. The
gentleman declares that Grant was made President, not because
the people wanted him for the public service, but because of
the offices he would have to give to the party which elected
him. This will be startling news to the great body of the
American people.

In the debate yesterday the gentleman from Indiana ^ called
the civil service reform a specimen of humbuggery. " It was
got up," he says, " in the interest of parties, whose object it
was to embarrass the operations of the present administration."
"The President did not originate the measure; it was originated
in Congress."

Another gentleman said that in an evil hour, hastily in the
night, the men who stood guard here in the Capitol allowed
this monster to be born, and sent out to plague the nation and
embarrass the administration. The gentleman from Massa-
chusetts^ said it was originated by a Senator from Illinois.
" Without one word of debate or explanation, the provision was
put on an appropriation bill and sent here; and then, at four
o'clock in the morning of the last day of the session, we were
obliged to pass it or lose the bill. Now, sir, the President could
1 Mr. Snapp. * Mr. Sbanki. * Mr. Butler.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 507

do nothing else than what he did in inaugurating this system;
for I look upon this movement as the origin of the Cincin-
nati Convention. It was a shrewd politician's trick to put the
President in such a position that if he did not inaugurate it he
could be attacked, and if he did inaugurate it and failed he
could still be attacked. And we fell into that trap."

My colleague on the committee ^ used this language : *' Nar-
row-chested men say to us we must make some show of believ-
ing in civil service reform, for fear of what they may say of us at
Cincinnati This outcry is fomented by a crowd of black-
mailers in the city of Washington and around this Capitol."

Another gentleman said : " I believe the civil service is much
better and purer, and freer from corruption, jobbery, and fraud,
than it has been before during a period of thirty years."

The gentleman from Minnesota^ said: "As I have no con-
fidence in these rules for civil service, then I will spit upon
them and vote against them The gentleman from Indi-
ana called it humbuggery; I will call it a delusion, a mere
farce, in which I will have no part."

Now, Mr. Speaker, those of us who do believe there is some-
thing in this effort for civil service reform, who do believe
that something ought to be done to better that service, are not
willing to be set down as humbugs, blackmailers, as stirrers-
up of strife to disturb the administration, and as " fomenters of
treason to be concentrated at the Cincinnati Convention." I
say we are not willing to rest in silence under such imputa-
tions, and allow our opinions to be despised without saying
something in defence.

In the elegant language of two of the assailants of this re-
form, they propose ** to spit upon it." One gentleman said he
would ** spit upon the idea." Just how that could be done he
did not tell us ; but I remind gentlemen that this business of
spitting upon men and reform is as old as the days of the cru-
cifixion of our Saviour. But spitting and reviling have never
" put down " any worthy reform or thought.

I ask the attention of the House for a few moments while I tell
when, where, and by whom this civil service reform was inau-
gurated. The first notice of it after I became a member of the
House was as far back as the Thirty-ninth Congress, when Mr.
Jenckes, a noble man from Rhode Island, — no " Western hum-

1 Mr. Sargent. * Mr. Dunnell.

S08 CIVIL SEHflCE REFORM.

bog," — pointed out the giowiog evils of our civil service, and J
when, by a committee which bad charge of the subject of re-
trenchment, facts were brought into this House which no man
ventured to gainsay, which called the aitention of the country
to the Dcceasity of reform. In the other branch of Congress.
attention was also called to the same class of evils. The voice
of the chief ExecutK-e was first heard upon the subject, in recent
times, on the 5th of December. 1870, In his annual message of
that date, the President said : —

" Always hsoi\j^ practical refonns, I respectfuUj- caU rour attentjon
to one abuse o* long standing, which I vrould like to see remedied by
ihfct Congres. It b a reform in the civil scrrice of the co«ntr)r. I
wookl have it go beyond the mere Axing of the lentue of office of clerics
and emplcij'ees, wbo do not require ' the advice and consent of the Sen-
ale ' to make dielr appointmenis complete. I wotild have il govern, not
the temire, but the manner of making aD appointments. There is no
duty which so much embarrasses the Executive and heads of depart'
mentsas that of appointments ; nor is there any such arduous and thank-
less labor imposed on Senators and Representatives as that of finding
pUces for constituents. The present 5)-stem does not secure the best
men."

I invite the attention of gentlemen who say that our system
is the purest and best that can be conceived, to this declaration
of the President: "The present system does not secure the
best men, and often not even fit men, for public place. The
elevation and purification of the civil service of the government
will be hailed with approval by the whole people of the United
States."

Over against what we heard on the floor yesterday, I put
that clear and manful statement of the President of the United
States, and I also call the attention of the House to another
statement by the President on the same subject. When we
had, in obedience to his recommendation, passed a law provid-
ing for a commission to aid in this work, and when he had ap-
pointed that commission, and they had made their report, he
sent us, on the rgth of December, 1871, a message accompany-
ing that report, in which he says : " I ask for all the strength
which Congress can give me to enable me to carry out the
refonns in the civil service recommended by the Commis-
sioners and adopted, to take effect, as before stated, on January
I, 1872." ■ .

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 509

** I ask for all the strength which Congress can give me."
And this is the strength you gave him in the debate of yester-
day on this floor !

Furthermore he says : ** I therefore recommend that a proper
appropriation be made to continue the services of the present
board for another year." And he goes on to recommend that
the three members of the board who hold other positions in
the public service be authorized to receive a fair compensation
for their extra services.

And now, when we undertake to comply with this recom-
mendation, we are told that this effort is made by the enemies
of the administration. If these gentlemen convince the coun-
try that they are carrying out the wishes of the President by
their opposition to this appropriation, they will have struck
him and his administration a more fatal blow than any yet de-
livered by those who use their right to criticise him. If all this
effort at civil service reform is a mere piece of acting, it is high
time the country should know it. If these gentlemen who de-
nounce civil service reform so loudly will convince the country
that the President has been insincere in all this, they will
thereby make the Cincinnati Convention a power to be courted
and feared, rather than denounced and " spit upon."

Mr. Sargent. The gentleman from Ohio himself says the plan is a
humbug.

The gentleman from Ohio says no such thing.

Mr. Sargent. He says it has proved futile and ineffective.

I beg the gentlcman^s pardon. I said that many suggestions
on civil service reform were doubtless idle and futile. But I
did not say, and I never say, that the pointing out of evils in
the civil service system, or that the demand for reform in the
civil service, was either futile or a humbug.

Mr. Sargent. The gentleman was speaking of the rules of this board.

On the contrary, I stated to my colleague ^ on the committee,
in the course of the debate, that I had not seen the new rules ;
and.this amendment refers to such rules as may yet be perfected
and adopted.

I hold in my hand a speech made in 1835 by no less a man
than Daniel Webster, in which he called attention to the great

1 Mr. Sargent.

5IO CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.

evils which had been brought into the public service by tiie
doctrine that " to the victors belong the spoils/' and in clear
and powerful language denounced those evik. I quote this
language: —

''The extent of the patronage springing from this power of iqipoint-
ment and removal is so great, that it brings a dangerous mass of private
and personal interests into operation in all great public elections and pub-
lic questions. .... The unlimited power to grant office and to take it
away gives a command over the hopes and fears of a vast multitude of
men. It is generally true that he who controls another man's means of
living controls his wiU. .... Office of every kind is now sought with ex-
traordinary avidity, and the condition well understood to be attached to
every office, high or low, is indiscriminate support of executive measures,

and implicit obedience to executive will I am for arresting the

furtlier progress of this executive patronage if we can arrest it I am for

staying the further contagion of this plague Sudden removals

from office are seldom necessary; we see how seldom by reference
to the practice of the government under all administrations irfiich pre-
ceded the present .... I desire only, for the present at least, that
when the President turns a man out of office he should give his reasons
for it to the Senate when he nominates another person to iill the place.
.... The removing power as recently exercised tends to turn the whole
body of public officers into partisans, dependents, favorites, sycophants,
and man- worshippers." ^

I hope gentlemen will not call this the language of " hum-
bug."

In the same debate, S. S. Prentiss, Senator from Mississippi, a
man of rare power, indorsed Webster's opinion in even stronger
terms, and pointed out the great falling off in the tone of the
civil service of that day. He said : —

" Since the avowal of that unprincipled and barbarian motto, that ' to
the victors belong the spoils,' office, which was intended for the use and
benefit of the people, has become but the plunder of party. Patronage
is waved like a huge magnet over the land, and demagogues, like iron
filings, attracted by a law of their nature, gather and cluster around its
poles. Never yet lived the demagogue who would not take office.

" The whole frame of our government, the whole institutions of the
country, are thus prostituted to the uses of party. I express my candid
opinion when I aver that I do not believe that a single office of impor-
tance within, the control of the Executive has for the last five years been

1 See Speech on the Appointing and Removing Power, Webster's Works, Vol.
IV. pp. 179-199.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 51 1

filled with any other view, or upon any other consideration, than that of
party effect. Office is conferred as the reward of partisan service.

" Do you not see the eagerness with which even Governors, Senators,
and Representatives in Congress grasp at the most trivial appointments,
the most insignificant emoluments? *'

The gentlemen who framed the report which has been for-
warded to us by the President give this weighty testimony : —

" During the early administrations appointments were made from con-
siderations of character and fitness, and removals took place for cause.
This practice, as it was the wisest and most reasonable, was also to be
expected, because Washington was unanimously elected to the Presi-
dency, and party divisions, as we know them, were developed only
toward the close of his administration. He required of applicants proofs
of ability, integrity, and fitness. ' Beyond this,* he said, ' nothing with
me is necessary, or will be of any avail to them in my decision.* John
Adams made few removals, and those for cause. Jefferson said that the
pressure to remove was like a torrent. But he resisted it, and declared,
in his famous phrase, that ' The only question concerning a candidate
shall be. Is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitu-
tion ? ' Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams followed him so faith-
fully that the joint Congressional Committee on Retrenchment reported,
in 1868, that, having consulted all accessible means of information, they
had not learned of a single removal of a subordinate officer, except for
cause, from the beginning of Washington's administration to the close of
that of John Quincy Adams.** ^

Will any gentleman risk his reputation as a student of polit-
ical history by denying any one of the statements here made?
I think not. They will not venture to say that Washington, or
John Adams, or Jefferson, or any of our Presidents for the first
forty years of the Constitution, was elected because of the offices
which the ** successful party " would be able to command.

The people, the millions of our worthy countrymen who look
upon our system of government with reverence, who study its
workings with patriotic affection, have not yet learned the lesson
which, during the last two days, has been so boldly taught on
this floor, — that politics is a trade, and officers are the mere
tools and implements of political tradesmen. How will gen-
tlemen dispose of such weighty testimony as that of my hon-
ored colleague,^ not now in his seat, who, not many weeks

1 Report of Civil Service Commission of December 19, 187 1, p. 3.

2 Mr. Shellabarger.

fiZ CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.

since, chaUenged the attention of the whole country by hiffl
powerful arraignment of the civil service as it now is? Hw
said ; —

"A ' civil service reform' that shall end this control by the Represrat^'
live of the appointments of liis ' district ' will rescue the Constitudori '
from one of its most threatening dangers. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I
am not liy this forbidding the President to take information as lo the fit-
ness of appointments from any intelligent and virtuous citizen, aJlhoogh
he may be a member of Congress ; but what I am deprecating and de-
manding to be reformed is that l>ad usage now attaining the strength of
law, by which Senators and members are expected, and even constrained,
to control the appointments of their Slates and districts.

" This fratricidal war against the foundation (jnalities of the government
was begun tliirty years ago by the Democratic party. The war took for
its motto and put upon its banners this : ' To the victors belong the spoils,'
May Heaven make it so that it shall be one of the new and crowning
acliievemcuts of the Republican party to efface that raoUO, and efface '
forever 1 And may there be written over it in letters inextinguishably
' To the people belong the offices, for free bestowment upon those
worthy to fill tiicm ' I "

It will lake a battalion of such assailants as have praised our
service as spotless, and denounced all attempts at reform as
" humbug," to controvert the truth of these weighty words. I
am proud to stand in the company of those who favor a reform
in this direction. In doing this, I denounce, not men, but a
system.

From the days of Jackson down to the present hour, without
the sole fault of any one administration, but by the process of
slow, insidious growth, we have been going on step by step,
until we have reached a situation which is deplored by the most
thoughtful men in the nation. It is true our public service is
and has always been purer than that which Brutus described
when he said, —

" r,et me tell you, Cassius, you yourself
Are much condemned (o have an itching palm;
To sell and mart your offices for gold
To undeservers."

But it is the logic and the tendency of our whole system to
sell the public offices for political favors and for aid to political
parties. It is this condition of things which the President of the
United States asks all his friends everywhere to help him re-
form, and which is rudely denounced by those who assume to

labl^^^H

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 513

be his special champions. I hope the House will vote down the
amendment made by the Committee of the Whole on the state
of the Union, and vote for the amendment of the Senate, and
I shall demand a vote by yeas and nays that we may see who
are willing to aid the President

On the 19th of April, 1872, the civil service was discussed in the
House, pending a bill introduced by Mr. Willard of Veraiont, to pre-
serve the independence of the several departments of the government
President Grant's executive order promulgating the amended civil ser-
vice rules and regulations of 1872 had appeared three days before.*
Mr. Garfield made the following remarks : —

Mr. Speaker, — Three things have been brought promi-
nently before us in this debate : first, that the Constitution of
the United States does not permit us to- inaugurate any civil
service reform ; secondly, that the interests of our great party
do not allow us to enter upon any such reform ; and thirdly,
that our civil service is now so pure that it is not worth while
to attempt to make it better. These three points have met us at
every turn in this debate, and I wish to say a word or two con-
cerning each.

My colleague ^ has just been telling the House what the Con-
stitution and its guaranties are in this regard, and what is the
effect of the teachings of the Constitution upon this bill. I call
the attention of my colleague to the fact that, from the days of
the fathers down nearly to the present time, it has been the
golden rule of this government that the three great departments
should be separate, independent of each other, coequal, co-
ordinate, and that the rights of neither should be encroached
upon by the others. There never was a nobler utterance on
this point than that made by John Adams, which was adopted
by all the fathers of the government, and embodied in the con-
stitutions of many of the States, that the " legislative depart-
ment shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or
either of them ; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative
and executive powers, or either of them; and the executive

* The bill introduced by Mr. Willard, and the executive order, together with
the civil service rules and regulations, are found in McPherson's '* Handbook of
Politics " for 1872, pp. 64-69.

* Mr. Bingham.

VOL. I. J3

514 CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.

shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either
of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws, and
not of men."

Now I affirm, Mr. Speaker, that during the last forty years
the spirit and meaning of that rule have been repeatedly vio-
lated in the mode in which our civil service has been adminis-
tered. It cannot be said with even a show of truth that the
Executive of this government does now exercise his constitu-
tional function of nomination to office even, without the con-
stant and increasing pressure of the legislative department
And for many years the Presidents of the United States have
been crying out in their agony to be relieved of this unconsti-
tutional, crushing, irresistible pressure brought to bear upon
them by the entire body of that party in the legislative depart-
ment which elected them to power. Individual members of
Congress are no longer wholly responsible for this state of
things, for they are also pressed by their political friends for
help, which it is understood they are able to render. It is
hardly possible for any man in public life to escape this pres-
sure. But this state of things has grown up gradually, and by
almost imperceptible degrees, until the old adjustment of the
different departments of the government is wholly changed.

I affirm that this present custom and policy is an apostasy
from the original policy of the government, — an apostasy
alarming in its character; and that the chief reason why a
reform in the civil service is required is that the three powers
of the government, or particularly the two powers, the legisla-
tive and executive, may be restored to their independence, —
may be left unawed and uninfluenced by the pressure of per-
sonal dictation and control.

We sometimes complain because our public buildings are
scattered so widely over this city. That policy was inaugurated
by President Washington, because he said the departments
ought to be kept separate and so far apart that there should be
no interference or collusion between them. It is for that reason
that our public buildings here were located at points so remote
from each other.

Mr. Speaker, we are told that our public service is now as
good as any in the world. The President says in his first mes-
sage which relates to this subject, that " the present system
does not secure the best men, and often not even fit men, for

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 515

public place." That is what the President of the United States
says to the gentlemen who oppose civil service reform, and who
say that this system is so good that nothing more is needed.

Next comes the plea for party and its necessities. Our party,
the gentleman from California ^ tells us, has done gloriously in
the past. I agree with him in this, and there are few things
that gentleman says in which I do not agree with him. But he
goes on to say that our party is doing its work well, and had
better not be disturbed by measures of this sort. Other gen-
tlemen have intimated that no party in this country could live
without the use of the government patronage to keep it in
power. The gentleman from Illinois ^ boldly told us that the
only way we ever elected a President was by letting his support-
ers understand that they were to enjoy the spoils of office as a
reward of success. Mr. Speaker, the history of the country and
its parties teaches me a different lesson. The best and noblest
reforms and revolutions in the public sentiment of this coun-
try have been achieved by the people with patronage, power,
and the spoils of office against them, and where not one in a
hundred of the successful expected any other reward than the
triumph of the principle they advocated. In such conflicts our
noblest triumphs have been achieved. But, sir, if we are to look
at mere party success, I would still say that a reform in our
civil service is fast becoming a demand of our time which no
party can afford to ignore.

The gentleman from Massachusetts® tells us we got along
well in our war; that the paymasters settled our accounts so
well that we stood pre-eminently above England in her settle-
ments during the Crimean war. Our paymasters did well;
and why? Because we had a system of service by which every
officer was held to a strict accountability, a system under which
we do not remove an officer from office upon the demand of
any politician who may want his place. Our navy and our
army both belong to that class of service which is the poles
apart from the kind of service to which this measure relates.
There is no great and eminently successful department of this
government which has not been made so by being taken out
of the ordinary channels of political management. Is there a
man here who would be willing to turn the Coast Survey over
to the fate of our ordinary civil service? In that bureau we

1 Mr. Sargent ' Mr. Snapp. * Mr. Butler.

5l6 CIVIL SERyiCB REFORM.

have a system of promolion by merit, which has given us
those distinguished and noble men who in that service have
crowned the nation with honor. So with the Light-House
Board; and so with all the branches of our service which have
really been an honor to human nature, and a glory to the nation
itself. It is because we wish to lift other departments to a sim-
ilarly high plane, that we ask the power of Congress to some
measure of civil service reform.

I pass to another point. Gentlemen who defend the purity
of our civil service say that it is now doing well, and needs no
reform. I ask those gentlemen what they think of the system
of political assessments. I ask them what they think of the
collector of a great port, or the chief of any great branch of the
service, issuing a circular calling for one, two, or three per cent
of the salaries of all the employees under his control, to be used
for party purposes, with the distinct understanding that, unless
they pay the assessment, others will be found to fill their places
who will pay them. I call the attention of gentlemen around
me to that shameful fact, which prevails all through our service,
and which has prevailed for the last twenty-five years; and I
call their attention to the honorable fact, that, in this very execu-
tive order, published two mornings ago, which has met such a
contemptuous reception in this House, the President of the
United States says, " Political assessments, as they are called,
have been forbidden in the various departments." Here is an
executive order forbidding political assessments, and yet gen-
tlemen around me do not want this order of the President to
prevail, because the practice which it condemns affords a large
so-called electioneering fund, which in many cases never gets
beyond the pockets of the hangers-on and mere camp-followers
of the party.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word in another direc-
tion. During the debate of last week, and also of yesterday,
insinuations were made affecting the motives of public officers
and of members, which I do not propose to pass over in silence.
We were told in very plain language that this civil service busi-
ness is a trick of some people who do not like the President,
and who want to get up a hostile movement at Cincinnati, and
that the President has been caught in a trap spread for him by
Congress at the instigation of his enemies. " Mark now, how a
plain tale shall put you down."

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 517

In speaking yesterday of the history of this movement, the
gentleman from Massachusetts ^ said it began in the Senate on
an amendment to an appropriation bill, which came over here
and was passed in the last hours of the session, far into the
morning, and, being thus forced upon the President, he was com-
pelled to take the action he did take. My answer is the plain
facts of the case, that the measure originated not in the Senate
on the night of March 4, 187 1, but in the President's message of
December 5, 1870, where these words are used: " I respectfully
call your attention to one abuse of long standing, which I would
like to see remedied by this Congress. It is a reform in the
civil service of the country." That was four months before the
amendment of which the gentleman speaks was put on in
the Senate. In obedience to the request of the President, on
the 4th of March, 1871, the amendment was added, authoriz-
ing the President to devise some means for the regulation of the
public service. Then, ten months after the law had been passed,
in obedience to the President's recommendation, a message
came to us from the President, bearing date December 19,
1 87 1, forwarding the report of the commissioners, and say-
ing : ** I ask for all the strength which Congress can give me
to enable me to carry out reforms of the civil service recom-
mended by the commissioners, and adopted, to take effect on
the 1st of January, 1872."

Mr. Bingham. My colleague will notice that the President reserves to
himself the right to amend the rules.

Certainly, he reserves to himself the right to amend the rules.
And now, on the i6th of April, 1872, he sends us an executive
order with a body of rules which the experience of several
months more has enabled him to present in an amended form,
and he calls upon Congress to support him in carrying these
rules into effect.

Now, I have recounted briefly the stages by which we reached
the present situation in regard to the civil service question.
I have shown you that the reform was begun by the President,
that it has been followed up by the President, and that he has
asked the help of Congress in carrying it out.

I desire to say, as the sum of all I wish to offer to the House
on this subject, that we have now reached a point in this legisla-

1 Mr. Butler.

5i8 CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.

tion where, in my judgment, one thing is absolutely necessary.
That is, that the Congress of the United States shall abdicate
its usurped and pretended right to dictate appointments to
the chief Executive. Now, I am not willing to go as far as the
gentleman from Vermont,' and make a recommendation to the
President a criminal offence, although I would remind my col-
league from Ohio ^ that we have a law which does make it a
criminal offence for members of Congress to practise in the
claims departments of the government.

Let us show our willingness to aid the President in this matter
by removing the great pressure of Congressional solicitation,
and then hold him responsible for the manner in which he dis-
charges his duties.

On the 2 2d of February, 1873, pending the question whether money
should be appropriated to defray the expenses of, or pay the salary or
compensation to, any officers engaged in the so-called competitive civil
service examinations, Mr. Garfield said : —

On the question of civil service reform, my opinions are well
known. I have never assented to all the plans and methods
adopted by the administration in regard to appointments under
the civil service system. A great deal may be said to excite
levity as to the mode of examination and the questions put
But I stand here to say that an administration that has had the
courage to undertake to reform the civil service as we have
known it, to seek some method that shall put it on the basis of
merit, and not on the basis of mere political patronage for
party service, ought not to be ** whistled down the wind " by
speech or speeches designed merely to ridicule the methods
employed.

The great political parties of the country have said that they
are in favor of a measure of civil service reform.^ The country
is demanding it. And what I complain of, on the part of gentle-
men who oppose everything attempted, is that they offer noth-
ing instead. They propose no affirmative action ; they simply
oppose whatever is attempted in that direction.

1 Mr. Willard. « Mr. Bingham.

' See Philadelphia and Cincinnati Platforms of 1872.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 519

Pending a similar question, June 12, 1874, Mr. Garfield spoke as
follows : —

The simple question before the House now is not whether
the civil service examination that has been advised is a wise and
just thing, and the best thing that can be done. It is whether
we will try any longer to do anything to better our civil service.
I hope gentlemen will make that issue squarely and fairly, and
meet it. If we intend that no further effort shall be made, that
the whole matter shall be abandoned, then say so ; that is plain
and square work. If we propose to return to the old Demo-
cratic system that we have inherited and been using, — the sys-
tem that holds that the whole body of patronage, that the forty,
fifty, sixty, or seventy thousand officeholders of the country,
are a mere set of pawns to be played for in politics, to be given
as gifts to political victors, — if we simply mean to trade and
make merchandise of the offices of the United States, — say it ;
say it, and parcel out to the victorious members of Congress
and the victorious party leaders their share of the gifts of office ;
say it, and stand by it, with your heads up in the light, and
defend it. But if, on the contrary, we believe that the offices of
the government were made for the service of the nation, and
not to be \i\t peculium of individuals, then let us at least be will-
ing to keep on experimenting, and see whether there be any
way by which this great national shame can be, in part at least,
abated. The plain proposition now is, that we, like swine, shall
return to our wallowing in the mire; that all the past, which we
have resolved against in conventions and written against in our
political pamphlets, shall now be hugged and embraced as the
true political doctrine of the American future.

Now, I do not believe in most of the things that have been
done in this matter of civil service examinations. Much of it is
trifling. It is too schoolmasterly. There is a great deal in it
that does not come up to the level of our practical necessities.
But let us try, try on ; and let us appropriate the small sum of
$25,000 to keep trying, so as to see whether something may not
be done to better the civil service of the United States. With
this view, I implore gentlemen on this floor not to throw us back
into the abuses of the past, and abandon all hope or purpose of
doing anything better for the future. On this score I hope —
no, I wish — that this House would appropriate the sum pro-
posed ; and I regret that the Committee on Appropriations did
not embody such a proposition in the bill.

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
April t, 187a

After the failure of the attempt to increase ihe customs duties, made
under liie leadership of Mr. J. S. Morrill in i866, there was no funhei J
attempi to legislate comprehensively ot sv-stemaiically upon the taii^fl
until the second session of the Forty-first Congress. February i, 1870^^
Chairman Schenck, of the Committee of Ways and Means, introduced a
bill to amend existing laws relating to the duty on imports, and for other
purposes. The siliiation had greatly changed since 1S66. Thetemperof
the public mind tailed imperaiivuly for a reduttioti in ihe cuslonis dutiffi.
Accordingly, the Schenck bill was a reduction measure. Pending this
bill in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Garfield delivered the following
speech.

The charge that Mr. Garfield was a free-trader, at one time cuireDt,
finds more to support it in this speech, and in his remarks and votet
pending the bill, than in anything else in his public record. The careful
reader of the speech, and of Mr. Garfield's whole record touching it,
will see that he recognized the fact that the condition of the country
and the state of the public mind demanded some relief from customs
taxation, and that the state of the Treasury, as well as the condition of
national industries, would justify some reduction ; but that in no sense
did he give up the protective principle, and that the great question with
him was. Granted a given reduction in taxation, how can it be best dis-
tributed? His historical outline of the growth of free commerce, and
his reference to the state of the Western mind touching protection, were
brought forward rather to induce protectionists to consent to reducdoD
than to establish the doctrine of free trade.

The debate on the bill dragged wearily on towards the end of the
session. At last, when it became morally certain that it could not be
carried through the House, as a whole, for want of time if for no other
reason, material portions of it were added to the Internal Tax BilL The

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 521

latter biU, as amended, finally passed both houses at the end of the ses-
sion. In the Statutes at Large its caption is, " An Act to reduce Internal
Taxes, and for other Purposes," approved July 14, 1870.

MR. CHAIRMAN, — You will doubtless agree with me
that any man deserves the sympathy of this House who
rises to add one more to the forty-two speeches which have al-
ready been made on this subject, and to fill the two hundred and
first column of the Daily Globe with his suggestions ; but I
congratulate the House that we are so near the end of this
general debate and the beginning of the bill.

The debate has been able and searching. I have listened
carefully to the various and conflicting views, and have tried to
consider them impartially. An unusual amount of valuable in-
formation has been communicated to the House, but I am com-
pelled to say that much of the argument has had reference to
abstract theories rather than to the practical issues involved in
the bill.

A great philosopher once said that abstract definitions had
done more injury to the human race than war, famine, and pesti-
lence combined ; and I am not sure but a philosophical history of
the struggles and difficulties through which the civilized world
has passed would prove the truth of his observation. I trust no
such disasters are likely to result from this discussion, and yet I
think we are approaching the verge of a great danger from a
similar cause. The most acrimonious utterances that we have
heard in these forty-two speeches were made concerning the ab-
stract ideas of free trade and protection ; and I fully agree with
my colleague ^ in his declaration that a large part of the debate
has not applied to the bill, but to abstractions.

There is, no doubt, a real and substantial difference of opinion
among those who have debated this subject, — a difference which
discloses itself in almost every practical proposition contained in
the bill ; but I am convinced that the terms used and the theories
advocated do not to any considerable extent represent practical
issues. There are, indeed, two points of the greatest importance
involved in this bill and all bills relating to taxes. One is the
necessity of providing revenue for the government, and the other

1 Mr. Schenck.

524 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1S70.

13 the necessities and wants of American industiy. These are ]
not abstractions, but present imperative realities. As an ab-
stract theory of political economy, free trade has many advo-
cates, and much can be said in its favor ; nor will it be denied
that the scholarship of modern times is largely 00 that side;
that a large majority of the great thinkers of the present day
arc leading in the direction of what is called free trade.

Mk. Keu-ev. The gentleman says no man will deny that the tendency
of opinion among scholars is toward free trade, I beg leave to deny it,
and do most positively, llie tendency of opinion among the scholara o(
the Continent is very decidedly toward protection. This is strikingly
illustrated by the recent publication in six of the languages of the Con-
tinent of the voluminous writings of Henry C. Carey, and their adoption
as text-books in the schools of Prussia, I think the gentleman's proposi-
tion is true of the English-speaking people of the world, but that the
preponderant tendency is tiie other way.

With the qualification which the gentleman makes, we do not
greatly differ. Take the iLnglish-spcaking people out of the
world, and civilization has lost at least half its strength. I de-
tract nothing from the great ability and the acknowledged fame
of Mr. Carey when I say that on this subject he represents a
minority among the financial writers of our day. I am trying
to state as fairly as I can the present condition of the question;
and in doing so I affirm that the tendency of modern thought is
toward free trade. While this is true, it is equally undeniable
that the principle of protection has always been recognized and
adopted in some form or other by all nations, and is to-day
to a greater or less extent the policy of every civilized gov-
ernment.

In order to exhibit the relation of these opposing doctrines
to each other, I invite the attention of the committee to a brief
review of the history of protection in the United States. Our
industry, like our liberty, has come up to its present strength
through a long and desperate struggle. We learned our indus-
trial lessons under a severe master. England taught us, not by
precept alone, but by the severest and sternest examples. The
history of our pupilage is full of interest, for it gave birth both
to our government and our industry. The economic doctrines
known as the Mercantile System, which prevailed throughout
Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, gave

\

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 523

shape and character to the colonial policy of all European gov-
ernments for two hundred years. It is a mistake to suppose
that in planting colonies in the New World the nations of Europe
were moved mainly by a philanthropic impulse to extend the
area of liberty and civilization. Colonies were planted for the
purpose of raising up customers for home trade. It was a mat-
ter of business and speculation, carried on by joint stock com-
panies for the benefit of corporations. The proof of this may
be seen in many pages of Bancroft and the other historians of
the period. While our Revolution was in progress, Adam Smith,
when discussing and condemning the colonial system, declared
that England had founded in America a great empire *' for the
sole purpose of raising up a nation of customers who should be
obliged to buy from the shops of our different producers all
the goods with which these could supply them." ^

When the Colonies had increased in numbers and wealth, the
purpose of the mother country was disclosed in the legislation
and regulations by which the Colonies were governed. The
British Navigation Laws, beginning in 1660, and extending on-
ward in a series of twenty-nine separate acts, each forming a
round in the ladder which reached from the depths of Colonial
servitude to Bunker Hill and American independence, form no
incomplete synopsis of the causes of our Revolution. The act
of 1660 provided that no article of Colonial produce or of Brit-
ish manufacture should be carried in any but British ships, and
that all the officers and two thirds of the crew engaged in the
carrying trade should be British sailors. This act also enumer-
ated a long list of raw materials produced in the Colonies, and
declared that none should be shipped to any but British ports.
It provided that the Colonies should be allowed to purchase only
in British markets any manufactured article which England had
to sell. In short, the Colonist was compelled to trade with Eng-
land on her own terms; and, whether buying or selling, the
product must be carried only in British bottoms at the carrier's
own price. In addition to this a revenue tax of five per cent was
imposed on all Colonial exports and imports.

A recent writer, in reviewing this period of our history, has
said : " Henceforth they [the Colonists] were to work for her ;
to grow strong, that they might add to her strength ; to grow
rich, that they might aid her in heaping up riches ; but not to

1 Wealth of Nations, Book IV. Chap. VIII.

r

524 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870.

grow either in strength or in wealth except by the means and in
the direction that she prescribed." ' It was in this spirit and in
pursuance of this policy that a royal order of 1606 permanently
intrusted to the Commissioners of the Board of Trade the man-
agement of the Colonies, which were regarded only as a part of
the interests of commerce.

But the vigilant " nation of shopkeepers" was not content
with watching and controlling the shipping and trade of Ameri-
can ports. Our cherishing motlicr laid her heavy hand on alt
the domestic industries of the Colonics. Colonial governors were
directed to discourage all American attempts at manufacturing
any article which England could furnish. In response to such
an order, Governor Spotswood of Virginia wrote to the King
this apology: "The people [of Virginia], more of necessity
than of inclination, attempt to clothe themselves with their own

manufactures It is certainly necessary to divert their

application to some commodity less prejudicial to the trade of
Great Britain." '

In 1701 a government agent was sent to examine and report
whether the conquest of Canada from the French would be
profitable to England. His advice to the King was in these
words : " The English need not fear to conquer Canada. Where
the cold is extreme and snow lies so long on the ground, sheep
will never thrive so as to make the woollen manufactures pos-
sible, which is the only thing that can make a plantation un-
profitable to the Crown. "

But reports and recommendations were not sufficient to pre-
vent the Colonists, especially of New England, from attempting
to clothe themselves. The power of Parliament was therefore
invoked, and in the tenth year of William and Mary an act was
passed which declared in its preamble that " Colonial industry
will inevitably sink the value of lands in England." The nine-
teenth section is so remarkable that I will quote it entire: —

" After the ist of December, 1699, no wool or manufacture made or
mixed with wool, being the produce or manufacture of any of the Eng-
lish plantations in America, shall be loaden in any ship or vessel upon
any pretence whatsoever, nor loaden upon any horse, cart, or other car-
riage, to be carried out of the English plantations to any other of the said
plantations, or to any other place whatsoever." '

' Greene, Hislorical View of the American Revolution, p. 38 (Boston, 1865).

^ Bancroft, History of the United Stales, VoL III. p. 107.

* Ibid, Vol. Ill-p. 10&

1

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 525

No Colonial wool or woollen manufactures might be shipped,
even from one Colony to another, and thus a general market
was rendered impossible. Every British sailor was forbidden
by law to purchase for his own use more than forty shillings*
worth of woollen goods in any American port.

Soon after British smiths began to manufacture iron, an in-
quiry was made whether the Colonists had ventured to engage
in that branch of industry. When it was found that they were
endeavoring to supply themselves with iron from their own hills,
the ironmongers of Birmingham sent a petition to Parliament,
praying " that the American people be subjected to such re-
strictions as may forever secure the trade to this country." In
1750 a bill was introduced into Parliament decreeing that every
slitting-mill in America be demolished. It was lost in the
House of Commons by only twenty-two votes. It was decreed,
however, that no new mills of that description should ever be
erected in America. Ore might be taken from the mine, and
iron in its rudest forms might be shipped duty free. " America
produced and England wanted it," says Mr. Greene, " but every
process which could add to the value of the unwrought ore was
reserved for English hands. It could neither be slit nor rolled,
nor could any plating-forge be built to work with a tilt-hammer,
or any furnace for the making of steel." ^

Furs were plenty in America, and the Colonists began to make
hats for themselves. The hatters of London, seeing " their craft
in danger " by a loss of customers, petitioned Parliament for a
redress of grievances, and in the fifth year of George II. a stat-
ute forbade the transportation of hats from one plantation to
another.

To maintain herself as mistress of the sea England must
increase her navy. She would not consent that British gold
should leave the island to purchase any pine

" Hewn on Norwegian hills to be the mast
Of some great ammiral."

So she turned to the free forests of America, which God, not
England, had planted, and decreed that every pitch-pine tree
two feet in diameter, and not in an enclosure, between the Del-
aware and the St. Lawrence, was the property of the King for
the use of his navy, and might not be cut without a royal license,

^ Historical View, p. 47.

J36 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1S70.

under a penalty of j^ioo. If the sinful chopper wore a dtsgutse,
he must receive twenty lashes on his bare back besides paying
a fine. A Surveyor-General of the King's Woods, with his anny
of deputies and clerks, came over the sea to enforce this law.

The slave trade was too profitable to be neglected by the
apostles of the Mercantile S>'stcm. Slaves could be bought
on the coasts of Africa for a few trinkets, and sold to the Span-
ish and other American colonies for gold. Hence, in the treaty
of Utrecht, England secured the monopoly of the Spanish
trade, and pledged herself to bring into the West Indies not
less than 144,000 slaves within the next thirty years, and pay
to Spain on 4,000 of them a duty of $33.33}-j per head. No
other nation was to enjoy this privilege. For the management
of this lucrative trade the Royal African Company was formed.
Philip V. of Spain took one quarter of the stock, *' the good
Queen Anne" another quarter, and the remaining half was re-
served for her British subjects.'

In a tract written by a Britisli merchant in 1745 it was de-
clared that •' the increase of intelligent white men in the
Colonies would injure British manufactures by introducing com-
petition ; but the importation of negroes will keep them depend-
ent upon England."

Whatever did not enhance the trade and commerce of Eng-
land was deemed unfit to be a part of the colonial policy. When
the good Bishop Berkeley proposed to establish a great Ameri-
can university, he was answered by Walpole: "That from the
labor and luxury of the plantations great advantages may ensue
to the mother country; yet the advancement of literature and
the improvement in arts and sciences in our American Colonies
can never be of any service to the British state."

A Colonial Commissioner, who was sent to England to ask an
increased allowance for the churches of Virginia, concluded his
earnest appeal to the royal Attorney- General in these words:
"' Consider, sir, , . . . that the people of Virginia have souls to
save.' 'Damn your souls!' was the ready reply; 'make to-
bacco.' " ' In that reply were embodied both the piety and the
policy of the British government in reference to their American
Colonies.

Worse even than its effects on the industry of the Colonies

was the influence of this policy on political and commercial

' .See Bancroft, Vol III. pp. 131, 133. * Historical View, pp. ij 14,

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 527

morality. The innumerable arbritrary laws enacted to enforce
it created a thousand new crimes. Transactions which the Col-
onists thought necessary to their welfare, and in no way repug-
nant to the moral sense of good men, were forbidden under
heavy penalties. They became a nation of law-breakers. Nine
tenths of the Colonial merchants were smugglers. Nearly half
of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were bred to
commerce, to the command of ships, and to contraband trade.
John Hancock was the prince of contraband traders ; and, with
John Adams as his counsel, was on trial before the Admiralty
Court, in Boston, at the exact hour of the shedding of the first
blood at Lexington, to answer for a $500,000 penalty alleged
to have been incurred as a smuggler. Half the tonnage of the
world was engaged in smuggling or piracy. The War of Inde-
pendence was a war against commercial despotism, — against an
industrial policy which oppressed and tortured the industry of
our fathers, and would have reduced them to perpetual vassalage
for the gain of England.

In view of these facts, it is not strange that our fathers should
have taken early measures, not only to free themselves from this
vassalage, but also to establish in our own land such industries
as they deemed indispensable to an independent nation. The
policy I have described prevailed throughout Christendom, and
compelled the new republic, in self-defence, to adopt measures
for the protection of its own interests.

No one now fails to see that the European policy of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was as destructive of
national industry as it was barbarous and oppressive. Political
philosophers did not hesitate to declare that a general and
devastating war among other nations was desirable as a means
of enhancing the commerce of their own. The great Dryden,
poet laureate of England, was not ashamed in one of his noblest
poems, the Annus Mirabilis, to invoke the thunder of war on
Holland for the sole purpose of reducing her commercial pros-
perity. What living poet would mar his fame by such a coup-
let as this ? —

"But first the toils of war we must endure,
And from the injurious Dutch redeem the seas."

Even as late as 1743 an eminent British statesman said in the
House of Lords : ** If our wealth is diminished, it is time to

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1S70.

1

niin the commerce of that nation which has driven u5 from the
markets of the Continent, by sweeping the seas of their sbip%
aiKl by blockading their ports."

A better civilization has changed all this. — has expanded the
area of commercial freedom, and remanded the industry of
nations more and more to the operations of the g<;neral laws of
trade. But it must be borne in mind that the political millen-
nium, when all nations belong to one family, with no collision
of interests and no need of distinct and separate policies, has
not yet come. Until that happy period arrives, each govern-
ment must first of all provide for its own people. Protection,
in its practical meaning, is that provident care for the industry
and development of our own country which will give our own
people an equal chance in the pursuit of wealth, and save us
from the calamity of being dependent upon other nations with
whom we may any day be at war. In bo far as the doctrine of
free trade is a protest against the old system of oppression and
prohibition, it is a healthy and worthy sentiment But under-
lying all theories there is a strong and deep conviction in the
minds of a great majority of our people in favor of protecting
American industry.

And now I ask gentlemen who advocate free trade if they
desire to remove all tariff duties from imported goods, I trust
they do not mean that. Do they not know that we are pledged,
by all that is honest and patriotic, to raise $i30,ooo,ocX) in gold,
every year, to pay the interest on our public debt? and will they
not admit the necessity of raising $20,000,000 more a year, in
gold, as a sinking fund, to apply to the principal of that debt?
It will not be wise statesmanship to raise less than $ 1 50,000,000
in gold a year. If this be admitted, we have the limit to which
we may reduce the duties on imported goods.

The heavy burdens which the people have borne during the
last eight years must not be taken as proof that they can readily
carry all that now rests upon them. We are now rapidly pass-
ing down from the high prices of the war; and the shrinkage
of values is every day making the weight of taxation heavier
to carry. Our revenue is now producing nearly $100,000,000
surplus, and it will be quite safe for the Treasury to reduce the
receipts of customs duties from $180,000,000 to $150,000,000,
and to remit internal taxes to the amount of $20,000,000 more,
thus making a total reduction of $50,000,000. This reduction

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 529

will afford great relief to the people, and will be safe for the
government.

We are limited in our tariff legislation by two things : first,
the demands of the Treasury, and, second, the wants and de-
mands of American industry. The Treasury we understand,
but what is American industry ? I reject that narrow view
which considers industry any one particular form of labor. I
object to any theory that treats the industries of the country
as they were treated in the last census, where we had one sched-
ule for " agriculture,** and another for ** industry," — as though
agriculture were not an industry, as though commerce and trade
and transportation were not industries. American industry is
labor in any form which gives value to the raw materials or ele-
ments of nature, either by extracting them from the earth, the
air, or the sea, or by modifying their forms, or transporting them
through the channels of trade to the markets of the world, or
in any way rendering them better fitted for the use of man. All
these are parts of American industry, and deserve the careful
and earnest attention of the legislature of the nation. Wherever
a ship ploughs the sea, or a plough furrows the field ; wherever a
mine yields its treasure; wherever a ship or a railroad train
carries freight to market; wherever the smoke of the furnace
rises, or the clang of the loom resounds ; even in the lonely
garret where the seamstress plies her busy needle, — there is
industry.

We have seen within what limits we are restrained in reducing
taxation. Let us next inquire in what way this reduction may
be so made as to give most relief to industry. And here let me
say that, in my opinion, the key to all our financial problems,
or at least the chief factor in every such problem, is the doc-
trine of prices. Prices exhibit all fluctuations of business, and
are as sure indicators of panics and revulsions as the barometer
is of storms. If I were to direct any student of finance where
to begin his studies I should refer him to the great work of
Thomas Tooke on the History of Prices, as a foundation on
which to build the superstructure of his knowledge.

But to make the study of prices of any value, we must ex-
amine the elements which influence prices. Some of them lie
beyond our control, while others are clearly within the reach of
legislation. Among the most prominent influences that affect
prices are seasons, crops, the foreign markets, facilities of trans-

VOL. I. 34

530 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870.

portation, and the amount and character of taxation and of tlie
currency. All these combine to regulate and determine the
prices that prevail in any one countrj.- as compared with prices in
others. "The early and the latter rain." abundance and famine,
war and peace in otlicr nations, and sometimes in our own, are
elements beyond our control. But we are responsible for the
statutes which regulate trade, transportation, currency, and taxa-
tion. It is in our hands to place the burdens of taxation where
they will impede as little as possible the march of industry, and
least disturb the operation of the great laws of value, of supply
and demand.

Now. consider the recent history of prices as related to in-
dustry in this country. When the war began, our public debt
was less than $65,000,000. During the eight years immediately
preceding the war the expenditures of the general government
did not reach an average of $59,000,000 a year. Then came ■
the war, by which nearly two millions of men were transferred
from the ranks of producers to the army of consumers. The
war itself was a gigantic consumer of wealth. In a single year
our expenditures reached the enormous sum of $1,290,000,000,
and when the last gun was fired our war had cost more than
$3,000,000,000, The immediate effect was a rapid advance of
prices; and from 1861 onward to 1866 the prices of all com-
modities rose to a much higher level than ever before. That
was a period of great industrial prosperity, such as a rising
market always brings; but it was an unnatural condition, which
could not long continue. Our taxes were adjusted to the grand
scale of war expenditures and war prices.

During the last four years the annual expenditure of the gov-
ernment has averaged $366,000,000, and this sum has been an-
nually raised by taxation. No one will deny that this weight
of taxation as compared with that before the war has been a
powerful cause of the increase of prices, and that reduction of
taxation will aid in reducing prices. The great volume of our
depreciated currency has also exercised a most important in-
fluence on prices; but this is not the occasion to discuss it.

Since 1866 we have been gradually passing down toward the
old lev?l of prices. But what has been the effect of our being
above it? This, that ours has been a good market for imports,
but a poor one for exports. Many of the foreign markets which
we largely controlled before the war have been practically closed

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 531

against us. For some commodities, such as breadstuflfs and
provisions, we still have a large market abroad. But if you
draw a line through the list of all our exports, and place pro-
visions above it and all other commodities below it, you will
find that, while the first class has somewhat increased, the second
has greatly fallen off during the last four years, as compared
with a corresponding period before the war. During the four
years preceding the war the total value of our domestic manufac-
tures exported to other countries was $168,000,000, an average
of $42,000,000 a year; while the total for the four years after
the war was but $132,000,000, an average of $33,000,000 a year.

Take, for instance, our exports to those countries that lie
within the bounds of the Western hemisphere, — countries that
would naturally draw their principal supplies from us. It will be
found that in our exports to all these countries there has been
a great falling off. I have obtained from the official records
some facts which strikingly exhibit the decrease of our trade
with some of these countries. For instance, during the four
years previous to the war the total value of our domestic ex-
ports to Canada amounted to $79,000,000, and the total value
of imports from Canada during that period amounted to about
$82,000,000, an average on both sides of about $20,000,000 a
year, the imports and exports being nearly equal. But during
the four years ending with June 30, 1869, the value of all our
exports of American products to Canada has been a little less
than $93,000,000, while the value of our imports from Canada
has exceeded $150,000,000.

Our exports to the Sandwich Islands during the four years
before the war were valued at $2,630,000, and our imports
from the Sandwich Islands at $1,578,000. During the last four
years we have exported to them $3,465,000, and have pur-
chased from them $5,181,000.

To illustrate still more forcibly the condition of our foreign
trade, I will exhibit the value of four leading articles of domes-
tic products exported by us in the years i860 and 1869, re-
spectively, both being reduced to a gold valuation.

i86a 1869.

Cottons 1 1 0,900,000 ^4,400,000

Iron machinery 5,514,000 809,000

Manufactures of copper and brass .... 1,664,000 444,000

Carriages 816,060 298,000

$18,894,060 $5,951,000

532 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870.

This shows a falling off of sixty-eight and one half per cent.

Now, without in any way indorsing the old theory of the
balance of trade, I state these facts to show that the markets
of neighboring countries are not buying our products in the
same proportion as before the war ; and for the manifest reason,
that prices here have been so high in comparison with prices in
other countries that they cannot afford to purchase of us, but
can more profitably sell to us for cash or bonds, and buy their
products elsewhere. One of the most efficient methods of en-
couraging home industry is to secure extensive markets, and to
do that our prices must be so adjusted as more fully to open
to our trade the markets of the New World. This would afford
a steady and constant demand for all the products of our in-
dustry, give greater stability to business, and restore to life our
almost ruined commerce.

We shall find the great remedy against these evils in the con-
tinued decline of prices, until a point is reached where we can
produce commodities for export at such a rate as will give us a
reasonable chance in the markets of the world. When that time
comes, the channels of trade will again be more fully opened,
and the currents will flow outward as well as inward. Now, I do
not suppose, Mr. Chairman, that we shall, for a quarter of a
century, reach the old level of prices; for with $250,000,000 of
taxes to be paid every year, prices cannot go down where they
were when we paid but fifty or sixty millions a year. But prices
must, nevertheless, go down nearer to the old level than they
now are; and all our legislation in which this great economic
truth is not recognized will be mistaken legislation. Indeed, I
fear that the downward movement is too rapid for safety. Since
this session began prices have greatly declined. When the cost
of living has so far decreased that the laborer can lay by as
much profit at a smaller rate of wages as he can at present
rates, the business of the country will be healthier, and the
foreign trade more abundant and advantageous. The laboring
man will not suffer by this, for it is not the gross amount he
receives, but the amount he can save after paying expenses, that
determines his prosperity. Congress has already done much to
aid in this reduction of prices.

In 1866, when we reached the highest point of taxation, ex-
penditures, and prices. Congress began the work of reduction.
In the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress we reduced the

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 533

internal revenue taxes $6o,ocx),ooo. In the second session we
reduced them $40,ooo,ocx> more. In the first and second ses-
sions of the Fortieth Congress we reduced them $70,ocx>,ooo
more. Thus, in a space of two years and a half, we reduced
the burdens of the country $170,000,000. We not only re-
duced, but we simplified taxation. It was simplified in many
ways. Where taxes were duplicated, complex, and annoying,
they were simplified, and, as far as possible, removed from in-
dustry and imposed upon vices, luxuries, and realized wealth.
Our present system of internal taxation, as modified by recent
legislation, applies almost exclusively to these three classes of
objects.

First, we tax the vices of the people, if that term may be
properly applied to some of their social habits. The smokes
and drinks and chews of the American people pay almost one
half of the taxes now collected under our internal revenue laws.
In the next place we tax the luxuries of the people. Nearly
one quarter of the internal revenue taxes are collected from that
class of articles. And, finally, we tax realized wealth in the
shape of incomes, sales, and gross receipts. These three classes
cover nearly all the objects of internal taxation ; and the system,
though susceptible of improvement and still greater reduction,
is eminently wise. It must be admitted that the income tax is
vexatious and inquisitorial, and I hope our revenues will soon
allow its abolition.

While we have made these heavy reductions, and thus greatly
relieved the burdens of the people, there has been no substantial
reduction of the taxes on imported goods. On all other things
we have reduced the war rates. We mustered out our great
army and navy, sold off our material of war, reduced the heavy
war rates of internal taxation, and generally have readjusted
our affairs to the conditions of peace. The demand is now
made from many parts of the country, and not without reason,
that the war tariff shall also be adjusted to the conditions of peace.
And this brings me to the bill now pending before the House.

The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means,^ in his
clear and vigorous speech yesterday, gave us an outline of its
provisions. He tells us that it reduces the rate of taxation on
six classes of articles ; namely, sugar, spices, coffee, drugs and
dyes, pig-iron, and a large class of miscellaneous articles. I

^ Mr. Schenck.

534 ^^^ TARIFF BILL OF 1S70.

understand him to say that the bill reduces taxation about!
$23,000,000 in the aggregate. That would leave us a gold rev- I
enue from imports of about $160,000,000, a sum sufficient fof a
discharging the annual interest on the public debt and one peri
cent per annum of the principal. Besides this proposed rfe- 1
ductlon, my colleague says there arc two other leading objects J
embraced in the bill: first, to readjust the rates on many arti-
cles subject to duty by levelling them up or down, as the c
may be, without materially changing the average duty; andJ
secondly, by changing ad valoran to specific duties, wherever ifl
can safely be done, in order to prevent fraud by undervalua-
tion at the custom-house. These, if I understand my colleague,
are the chief objects of this bill ; and in the main they meet my
full approval. The general plan is a good one, though on its
details there may be difTerence of opinion. ■

In addition to these objects I desire to suggest a principle!
that ought to be applied to this and all our tariff legislation.
So far as it can reasonably be done, the system of customs duties
should be so simplified that there shall be as little duplication
of taxes as possible. We oujjht to do for the tariff laws what
we did in 1866, 1867, and 1868 for the internal revenue laws,
when we removed taxes from the separate processes and im-
posed them mainly on completed products.

Mr. Chairman, though I shall reserve my remarks generally
on the items of the bill till we reach them in the regular course
of the debate, yet I will take this occasion to refer to one mat-
ter here treated which deeply concerns the people of many lo-
calities. I refer to the duties on iron in its various forms. I
doubt if there is any man on this floor whose constituents will
be more seriously affected by the passage of this bill than my
own ; and I should not do justice to them, nor to the truth, if
I did not exhibit to the House precisely the effect of this bill
upon their interests.

But let me say, Mr. Chairman, I refuse to be the advocate of
any special interest as against the general interests of the whole
country. Whatever may be the personal or political conse-
quences to myself, 1 shall try to act, first, for the good of all,
and, within that limitation, for the industrial interests of the
districtwhich I represent. But I desire to say to the committee,
and particularly to my colleague,' that, if I can prevent it, I
< Hr. Schenck.

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 535

shall not submit to a considerable reduction of a few leading
articles in which my constituents are deeply interested, when
many others of a similar character are left untouched, or the
rate on them is increased.

I desire to call attention to the provision of this bill which
most concerns the manufacturers of my own district, and that
is the duty on pig-iron. I believe there are about 445 iron-fur-
naces now in blast in the United States. There are nineteen in
my district alone ; there are nine more in the district of one of
my colleagues,^ and several more in an adjoining district rep-
resented by another colleague.^ These furnaces produce, on an
average, about 7,000 tons of pig-iron per annum, and nearly all
of them use raw bituminous coal in reducing ores.

I believe that the first furnace in the United States which
reduced ore with raw bituminous coal was established in Ma-
honing County, Ohio, in 1846. From that time, year by year,
with some interruption,*there has been an increase in the num-
ber of furnaces. In the year 1856 the Lake Superior ore was
first brought down to the Ohio coal region, and now there come
down the Northern Lakes, as has been shown by the gentleman
from Michigan, about 500,000 tons of that ore per annum; and
more than one fourth of the whole amount is every year con-
sumed in two counties of my Congressional district.

Now, this bill reduces the duty on pig-iron $2, which is 22^
per cent less than the present duty. If the House of Repre-
sentatives thinks that this ought to be done, and if I shall be
convinced that the public good requires it, I shall not resist it.
But the furnace-men of my district say that this reduction ought
not to be made. They say that the Special Commissioner of
the Revenue has miscalculated the cost of producing pig-iron,
and that the recommendation of the Committee of Ways and
Means will be injurious to their interests. When we reach the
clauses of the bill relating to iron I shall present to the House
the estimates and facts which they have furnished me. For the
present, however, I desire to ask the attention of my colleague ^
to a point in connection with the duty on pig-iron.

In the paragraphs of the bill relating to iron I find this pro-
vision : " On cast-iron steam, gas, or water pipes, i ^ cents per
pound." Now, I understand that, next to pig-iron, the cheapest
form of cast-iron product in the United States is the article of

1 Mr. Ambler. 2 ^f^, Upson. •' Mr. Schenck.

536 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870.

large and heavy water-pipes, made of the poorest and cheapest
iron, and costing at the present time, in the wholesale market,
from $50 to $60 a ton, — not a third more than pig-iron. I find
that the Committee of Ways and Means, instead of reducing
the duty on this product, have raised it to i-J-^J cents per pound.
which amounts to $39.30 per ton in gold. Now, if the product
itself U worth on an average $55 a ton in currency, the proposed
rate will amount to 85 per cent ad valorctn ; while on pig-iron,
a product of vastly more importance, and involving the invest-
ment of an enormous amount of capital, the duty is reduced
from $9 to $7 per ton. a decrease of 22,"^ per cent. I ask ray
colleague whether he thinks I ought, in justice to my constitu-
ents and to this great interest, to permit the duty on pig-iron to
be thus reduced, and allow this coarsest and cheapest form of
cast-iron except pig to be protected by duty six times as great.
The distinguished gentleman from lowa,^ a member of the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means, has affirmdH in his speech that the
duty on ninety sizes of iron is increased by this bill, while there
are less than ten sizes on which it is reduced. If this is a bill
to increase generally the duties on iron, 1 shall resist this de-
crease on the leading article manufactured by my constituents.

Mr. Schenck. It is but repeating what I have already said to assure
my colleague that, if he is dissatisfied with these rates, he will have every
opportunity of moving to change the rates when we come to those items,
and that will draw out the reasons pro and con for any changes in the
tahlf upon the same.

Certainly; I am aware of that. But I desire to say in this
connection that I hold it to be the duty of this committee, and
particularly of members who represent iron interests, to show
us precisely what this bill provides on this whole subject. My
colleague says that he will give us a chance to offer amendments.
I desire to say to him that, when the classification of a whole
subject has been changed, it is not possible for any person not
an expert to say, without very careful study, whether the rate
has been increased or decreased. The entire classification of
some subjects in this bill has been changed, and so changed
that none but an expert can tell what the effect will be. Now,
I agree with the Committee of Ways and Means that it is a wise
policy to make a moderate reduction of some of the existing
1 Mr. Allison.

I

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 537

rates of duty, and I am ready to aid in such reductions ; but I
shall insist upon fair dealing all around. If the duties on the
products of my constituents are to be reduced, I shall ask that
the duties on the products of industries in other districts shall
likewise be reduced. If the article of salt, represented here by
the gentleman from Syracuse,^ on which the internal tax in his
district alone in 1866 amounted to $280,000, but all of which has
been removed, and of course the producers benefited by just
that amount, — if salt, I say, is to be left untouched, then I shall
insist that some greater interests shall be left untouched also.
The reduction proposed should be made in some equitable way,
in order that relative justice may be done.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not desire to be misunderstood.
The points that I have made in regard to special interests in
my own district I do not make in any narrow and sectional
spirit, nor for the sake of being heard in my own district.
After studying the whole subject as carefully as I am able, I
am firmly of the opinion that the wisest thing which the pro-
tectionists in this House can do is to unite in a moderate re-
duction of duties on imported articles. He is not a faithful
Representative who merely votes for the highest rate proposed
in order to show on the record that he voted for the highest
figure, and is therefore a sound protectionist. He is the wisest
man who sees the tides and currents of public opinion, and
uses his best efforts to protect the industry of the people
against sudden collapses and sudden changes. Now, if I do
not misunderstand the signs of the times, unless we do this
ourselves, prudently and wisely, we shall before long be com-
pelled to submit to a violent reduction, made rudely and with-
out discrimination, which will shock, if not shatter, all our
protected industries.

There have been few occasions when Congress and the
country had more need than now of studying the lessons
taught by the history of past legislation. I therefore ask the
indulgence of the committee for a few moments while I review
the history of our tariff legislation. As I read that history, the
warning is repeated again and again to avoid extremes.

The second act of the First Congress, called " the Hamilton
tariff" of 1789, continued in force, with some additions and
modifications, for twenty-five years. During that period the

» Mr. McCarthy.

538 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. - ™

average rate of duty on imported goods did not exceed i; per
cent.

The war of 1812 greatly crippled our commerce, and proved
the necessity of a more independent system of liome manufac-
tures. Tlic public debt, whicli in 1815 reached $120,000,000,
required an unusually large revenue, and at the meeting of
Congress in December of tliat year. Mr. Madison recommended
an increased duty on imports, not only for the sake of revenue,
but also for the protection and maintenance of our manufactur-
ing industry, which had received a powerful impulse during the
latter part of the war. He expressed the belief that our manu-
factures, with a protection not more than was due to the enter-
prising citizen whose interests were at stake, would become at
an early day not only safe against occasional competition from
abroad, but a source of domestic wealth and even of external
commerce. During that session the Calhoun tariff of 1816 was
passed, which may be said to mark the beginning of discrim-
inating protection. The bill was sustained by the South, but
opposed by New England ; it being claimed on the one hand
that it would utilize the cotton crop of the one section, and on
the other that it would injure the commerce and fisheries of the
other section. The tariff of 1816 lasted for eight years, pro-
ducing a revenue of from 20 to 35 per cent of the importations,
the average rate being about 25 per cent.

The year 1824 marked the era of what may be called " the
Clay tariff," which passed the House by five majority and the
Senate by three. It encountered its heaviest opposition from
New England, Massachusetts and New Hampshire together cast-
ing twenty-three votes against and only three for the bill. In
this tariff " the American system," as Mr, Clay named it, found
its first complete embodiment The duties imposed by it ranged
from 34J to 41 per cent. When it had been in operation about
four years the friends of protection determined to push the rates
up to a still higher figure, and the act of 1828 was passed by a
close vote, after an acrimonious debate, with bitter feeling and
intense excitement on both sides. Almost immediately after its
passage the reaction began, and it went on gathering Ticad and
force until, in 1832, resistance to the tariff assumed the form of
nullification and open rebellion, and the whole country was
brought to the verge of civil war. To avert such a calamity
Henry Clay, the great leader of the protective movement, him-

I

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 539

self came forward with a bill reducing the rates by a sliding
scale, to operate for ten years, until the average of 20 per cent
should be reached.

Mr. Kelley. I simply want to suggest that that movement was un-
derstood at the time, and did not relate to the tariff at all. General
Jackson understood it when he said it did not mean tariff, but it meant
slavery and disunion, and the tariff was only a pretext.

It is true that other questions were involved in the issue, but
the gentleman will find it unsafe to apply the test of history to
his assertions. The contest was concerning the tariff, particu-
larly the act of 1828. It was that act which South Carolina
nullified, and refused to allow to be executed within her bor-
ders. When Mr. Clay's compromise tariff passed. South Caro-
lina revoked her acts of nullification, and came out of the contest
with flying colors. The compromise tariff of Mr. Clay prevented
civil war. It went into operation in 1833, but the free-traders
pushed their victory so far that, in 1840, a great reaction came
from the other side, and they were in turn driven from power,
and the tariff of 1842 was adopted, by which the rate of duty
was raised, and fixed at an average of 33 per cent.

The free-trade party having again come into power, a heavy
reduction of the tariff was made in 1846, and the rate pushed
down to an average of 24 J^ per cent. This act continued in
force without material change during a period of nine years,
when the Democratic party, flushed with success in the Presi-
dential election of 1856, determined to push their free- trade
policy to a still greater extreme, and in the tariff act of 1857
they reduced the rate of duty to 20^ per cent, a lower rate
than it had reached in forty years. This law so crippled the
revenue of the government that in i860 the Treasury was
empty, and our credit so poor that the Secretary paid twelve
per cent interest for loans which, even at that rate, he found
it difficult to negotiate.

As might be expected, there was another reaction in favor of
higher rates, and the year 1861 marked a new era in the history
of the tariff. Now the rates were again raised. From the 2d
of March, 1861, to the present time, there have been thirteen
separate tariff acts and resolutions, all of which have more
or less increased the rate of duties, and it now averages about
47^ per cent on dutiable articles, and over 41 per cent on
all our imports, both dutiable and free. That these acts were

540 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870.

made necessary by the war, few will venture to deny. It is
also undeniable that the heavy internal taxes imposed upon
manufacturing industries neutralized the effect of protective
duties, and made an increase of the tariff necessary as a meas-
ure of compensating protection. But, as I have already shown,
the heaviest burdens of internal taxes have been removed from
manufactures, and a demand that some corresponding reduc-
tion in the tariff rates shall be made is coming up from all
quarters of the country. The signs are unmistakable that a
strong reaction is setting in against the prevailing rates, and
he is not a wise legislator who shuts his eyes to the facts of the
situation.

The historical review that I have given strongly exhibits the
fact that the industry of the country during the last half-century
has been repeatedly tossed up and down between two extremes
of policy, and the country has suffered great loss by each vio-
lent change.

The great want of industry is a stable policy ; and it is a sig-
nificant comment on the character of our legislation, that Con-
gress has become a terror to the business men of the country.
This very day the great industries of the nation are standing
still, half paralyzed at the uncertainty which hangs over our
proceedings here. A distinguished citizen of my own district
has lately written me this significant sentence : ** If the laws of
God and nature were as vacillating and uncertain as the laws of
Congress in regard to the business of its people, the universe
would soon fall into chaos."

Mr. Chairman, I have already said that we see in many parts
of the country a desire to reduce our tariff rates. Turning aside
from the merits of the question itself, I ask the attention of the
committee to the possibilities of the case. Consider the forces
and elements now operating upon the question, and ask your-
selves what is likely to be the result. In this House there are
about sixty Democrats, a great majority of whom are declared
free-traders.

Mr. Wood. I beg the gentleman's pardon ; I do not know a single
free-trader, as such, on this side of the House.
Mr. Cox. Here is one.
Mr. Mungen. Here is another.

** Ex pede Herculcm."

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870. 541

Mr. Wood. I am in favor of a tariff for revenue, and not for absolute
free trade, and I believe that is the position occupied by a majority of
the members on this side of the House.

If the gentlemen on the other side are not nearly all free-
traders, they have misrepresented themselves ; for of the score
that have made speeches on this subject almost every one has
denounced the tariff as robbery or fraud.

So much for that side of the House. How is it on this?
West of Ohio, north of Arkansas, and east of the Rocky Moun-
tains, there are nine States represented here, all of them Repub-
lican, some of them overwhelmingly Republican in politics.
Yet, if I understand correctly the opinions of the fifly-seven
Democratic and Republican Representatives in this House from
those nine States, there are at least fifty of them who are in
favor of some reduction in the present rates of our tariff.

I do not think there is any agreement among these gentlemen
what they will reduce or how much they will reduce, and I say
nothing now about the justice or injustice, the wisdom or folly,
of their opinions. Many of them from the Northwest, like the
gentleman from Minnesota,^ affirm that the duties as at present
adjusted are oppressive to the farming community, and give
great and undue advantage to those engaged in manufactures.
Many of them tell us there is a feeling of deep discontent and
growing hostility to the tariff among agriculturists. Many of
them, like the gentleman from Minnesota, disavow any sympa-
thy whatever with free trade or free-traders, and have no more
sympathy with the Democratic party now than they had during
the war. Many of them tell us that, unless we submit to a
reasonable reduction of tariff duties, the reaction now in pro-
gress will soon seriously shatter our whole protective system. I
invoke the earnest attention of the House to these facts showing
our situation.

I will not indulge in crimination or recrimination. I will take
no part in the violent denunciation which we have heard in the
progress of this debate. I do not believe, on the one hand, that
the manufacturers are corruptly striving for their own gain as
against the public good ; nor, on the other, that the free-traders
have been bought with British gold, and are wilfully and know-
ingly the enemies of their country. I stand now where I have
always stood since I have been a member of this House. I take

1 Mr. Wilkinson.

542 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1870.

the liberty of quoting from the Congressional Globe of 1866 tlie
following remarks which I then made on tlie subject of the tariff.
'■ We have seen that one extreme school of economists would plate
the price of all manufactured articles in the hands of foreign producers,
by rendering it impossible for our manufacturers lo compete with them ;
while the other extreme school, by making it impossible for the foreigner
lo sell his competing wares in our market, would leave no check upon
ihe prices which our manufacturers might fix upon their products. I
hold, therefore, tliat a properly adjusted competition between home and
foreign products is the best gauge by which to regulate international
trade. Duties should be so high thai our manufacturers can fairly com-
pete with the foreign product, but not so high as to enable them to drive
out the foreign article, enjoy a monopoly of the trade, and regulate the
price as they please. To this extent I am a protectionist. If our
government pursues this line of policy steadily, we shall, year by year,
approach more nearly lo the basis of free trade, because we shall be more
nearly able to compete with other nations on equal terms. I am for a
protection which leads to ultimate free trade. I am for thai free trade
which can be achieved only through protection." '

Mr. Chairman, examining thus the possibilities of the situa-
tion, I believe that the true course for the friends of protection
to pursue is to reduce the rates on imports wherever we can
justly and safely do so, and, accepting neither of the extreme
doctrines urged on this floor, endeavor to establish a stable
policy that will commend itself to all patriotic and thoughtful
people.

I know that my colleague * thinks that general debate on this
subject is of little consequence, but that the true discussion is
on the details of the bill. I grant it ; and I know that, when we
come to consider the separate items of the bill, he will find that
men declaring themselves free-traders will vote for a high rate
of duty on some articles in which their districts are interested,
and for a very low duty for other things in which their districts
are not interested. This was my own experience on the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means. But I have expressed in this gen-
eral and desultory way the views which I shall carry into the
discussion ; and I believe that they are the views which will best
subserve both the interests of the Treasury and the general
interests of American industry.

* See anfe, p. zo8. * Hr. Schenck.

I

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

June 7, 1870.

From 1868 to 1870, as from 1866 to 1868, the new financial heresies
continued to make headway. In its national convention for 1868 the
Democratic party declared that, when the obligations of the government
did not expressly state upon their face, or the law under wKich they were
issued did not provide, that they should be paid in coin, they ought to
be paid in the lawful money of the United States, — that is, in green-
backs ; and it also demanded the taxation of government bonds and
other securities at their face value. The same year the Republican party
did, indeed, denounce all forms of repudiation, and declare that the
public indebtedness should be paid in the utmost good faith to all cred-
itors according to the spirit as well as the letter of the law ; but the plat-
form was silent upon resumption, and a great many Republicans were
as crazy upon financial subjects as Democrats could be. A demand
for " money enough to meet the demands of trade " sprung up, and
grew louder and louder. Inflation of the currency became a mania,
and was happily characterized by Mr. Garfield in some remarks made in
the House, February 28, 1867 • —

" Mr. Speaker, in one hour this House will dispose of one of the most
important measures of the session next to reconstruction, and I wish to
say to the distinguished and venerable gentleman from Pennsylvania,*
that I am willing to go to his school and learn of him, but I appeal from
his teachings of to-day to his teachings of three years ago.

"When the bill was brought forward in the House, in 1862, the gen-
tleman is recorded in the Globe as opening his speech as follows : * Mr.
Speaker, this bill is a matter of necessity, and not of choice. I hope this
issue of $150,000,000 will be the last. I should be grieved to see any
further expansion of the currency.*

"That was in the early spring of 1862, when but |6o,ooo,ooo of
United States notes had been issued, and when he was proposing to issue

* Mr. Stevens.

S44 CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. fl

8150,000,000 more. That 1150,000,000 was issued, and ^loo.ooo.ooffd

more, and 8400,000,000 more, deluge on deluge, until the enormous toul J
has swelled to %\ ,100,000,000 ! It is now nearly $900,000,000, and yetfl
the gentleman talks of wanting more. I know of nothing which beitetfl
illustrates the mania for paper money than 'Rum's Maniac' as pOP fl
traycd by Dr. Nott The poor victim, whom rum had ruined in famflj" J
and property, was in the mad-house, and in his insane ravings called on J
all the friends of his early years to save him ; but the refrain of every 1
prayer was, — I

' Will no one pity, no one come? I

O give me rum I O give me rum f ' I

"The vast volume of irredeemable paper moneynow afloat has pbyed I
the chief part in dbturbing all the norma! relations of business. Bua-
ness men and legislators have taken paper money in such overwhelming
doses that they arc crared, and, like tlie lotus-eaters, wish to return no
more to solid values. Forgetting the past, forgetting their own teachings,
their votes, and their records of a year ago, they join in the crazy cry,
' Paper money I Oh, give us more paper money ! '

" Why, sir, at the last session but six memljers of the House wee
found to vote against a resolution that we ought to return to specie pay-
ments, and to ilo it we must contract the cvirrency. Thai was the al-
most un.inimoAi'; opinion of this House at the bf pinning of the b>t session.
We commenced the work of contraction cautiously and slowly, but when
these gentlemen found it pressed them only a little, they cry out, like the
maniac, ' Press us no more ; give us more paper money ! ' , A man's
hand is hopelessly shattered ; it must be amputated or he dies ; but the
moment the surgeon's knife touches the skin he blubbers like a boy, and
cries, ' Don't cut it ! take away the knife I the natural laws of circulation
will amputate it by and by.' Yes, gangrene and death will soon settle the
difficulty, and save him from the pain of the knife."

For the time men of sound views abandoned an immediate return to
coin payments, as well as all measures of direct preparation for it, and
hoped for nothing more than to hold the rising tides of tinanciat folly and
dishonor in check. The House of Tiepresentatives, which responded
more fully than the Senate to popular feeling, adopted this resolution,
February 21, 1870 : "Resolved, That, in the opinion of the House, the
business interests of the country require an increase in the volume of
circulating currency, and the Committee on Banking and Currency are
instructed to report to the House, at as early a day as practicable, a bill
increasing the currency to the amount of at least (50,000,000."

At the opening of the Forty-first Congress, Mr. Garfield was made
Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency. His aim now
was to use the full power of his position, as well as his personal force and
influence, to prevent the enactment of measures that would impair the

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 545

public credit or inflict injury upon the country. Indirectly, however, he
was able to render the treasury and the country a substantial service in
carrying through a bill, introduced as a reply to the resolution of Feb-
ruary 21, authorizing an enlargement of the national bank circulation, as
well as a redistribution of a portion of the old circulation. From the
day that this measure was introduced (April 27), with the title, "A Bill
to increase Banking Facilities, and for other Purposes," to the day of its
passage and approval (July 12), with the title, "An Act to provide for
the Redemption of the Three Per Cent Temporary Loan Certificates,
and for an Increase of National Bank Notes," Mr. Garfield made, besides
remarks and a lengthy statement on presenting a conference committee's
report, three speeches, at as many different stages in the progress of the
measure. Because this was more peculiarly his own than any other
financial measures with which his name is connected, as well as because
they cover all phases of the pending question, and a vast region of finan-
cial discussion lying outside of that question, these speeches will be here
given, one of them somewhat abridged. The first speech was upon the
bill as reported firom the committee, and was as follows.

''Credit is the vital air of the system of modem commerce. It has done more a thousand
times to enrich nations than all the mines of all the world.*' — Daniel Webster.

MR. SPEAKER, — I trust I shall have at least the sympa-
thy of the House in an attempt to discuss so difficult and
delicate a subject as the currency of the country; and espe-
cially so now, when probably more than at any other time in the
history of the country there is a chaos of opinions and a war
of theories on the whole subject of finance. If each member
should write down in brief what he thinks ought to be done with
the currency of the country, and all the opinions were col-
lated, it would make a most singular collection of contradic-
tions. I do not say this as a reflection upon the House, or any
member of it, but to exhibit the singular state of opinion, not
only here, but throughout the country. After some reflection,
I do not believe it possible that any comprehensive financial
measure can at this time receive the general assent of the
whole country, or of any considerable majority in this House.
Having my own cherished and decided opinions, and having
frequently announced them here, I find it impossible to realize
my own ideas in any bill which can have the least possible
chance of passing in this House ; and, so far as I know, the

VOL. I. 35

546 CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

same may be said of every other member of the House. Under
circumstances like these it became the duty of the Committee
on Banking and Currency to prepare a bill to meet, as far as
possible, the manifest demands of the country. And in at-
tempting to do this we labored under all the difficulties that I
have named, with the additional difficulties of instructions from
the House, and of a resolution from the other branch of Con-
gress expressing opinions diametrically opposite to those of the
House.

Before entering upon the consideration of the bill itself, I ask
the indulgence of the House while I state a few general propo-
sitions touching the subject of trade and its instruments. A
few simple principles form the foundation on which rests the
whole superstructure of money, currency, and trade. They
may be thus briefly stated.

First. Money, which is a universal measure of value and a
medium of exchange, must not be confounded with credit cur-
rency in any of its forms. Nothing is really money that does
not of itself possess the full value which it professes on its face to
possess. Length can be measured only by a standard which in
itself possesses length. V\'ci<;ht can be measured only by a stan-
dard, defined and recognized, which in itself possesses weight.
So. als(^ value can be measured only by that which in itself pos-
sesses a definite and known value. The precious metals, coined
and stamped, form the money of the world, because when thrown
into the melting-pot and cast into bars they w^ill sell in the mar-
ket as metal for the same amount that they will pass for in the
market as coined money. The coining and stamping are but a
certificate by the government of the quantity and fineness of
the metal stamped. The coining certifies to the value, but
neitlier creates it nor adds to it.

Second. Paper currency when convertible into coin at the
will of the holder, though not in itself money, is nevertheless
an order for money, a title to the amount of money promised on
its face ; and so long as there is perfect confidence that it is a
good title for its full amount, it can be used as money in the
payment of debts. Being lighter and more easily carried, it is
for many purposes more convenient than money, and has be-
come an indispensable substitute for money throughout all civil-
ized countries. One quality which it must possess, and without
which it loses its title to be called money, is that the promise

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. $47

written on its face must be good, and kept good. The declara-
tion on its face must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. If the promise has no value,' the note itself is
worthless. If the promise affords any opportunity for doubt,
uncertainty, or delay, the note represents a vague uncertainty,
and its value is measured only by the remaining faith in the final
redemption of the promise.

Third. Certificates of credit, under whatever form, are among
the most efficient instruments of trade. The most common
form of such certificates is the check or draft. The bank is the
institution through which the check becomes so powerful an
instrument of exchange. The check is comparatively a mod-
em invention, whose functions and importance are not yet fully
recognized. It may represent a deposit of coin or of paper
currency, convertible or inconvertible ; or it may, as is more fre-
quently the case, represent merely a credit, secured by property
in some form, but not by money. The check is not money ;
yet, for the time being, it performs all the functions of money
in the payment of debts. No greater mistake can be made
than to suppose that the effective value of currency is not
directly increased by the whole amount of checks in circula-
tion. A recent financial writer says : " Considering the bank
note and check, both are promises to pay, both orders for
money and payable on demand, and both, when the holder has
faith in the promise, are received in payment for debts." Bon-
amy Price, the latest English authority on this subject, con-
cludes one of his most powerful chapters on currency with these
words : —

** For my part, let others dwell on notes, the numbers of their circu-
lation, their tendency to increase or diminish, their stability and their
solvency, — let me rather hear of the movements and operations of the
check. The rising flood of checks, as it is a sign of the activity, so also
is it the usual mark of the profitableness of business ; their ebb too
surely announces the drooping resources of commerce. Great is the
note, I admit ; but far greater yet is the check." ^

If any one doubts the correctness of this position, I call his
attention to the remarkable fact that the bank-note circulation
of Great Britain is no greater to-day than it was thirty-five
years ago. By Sir Robert PeeFs Currency Act of 1844, the in-
crease of bank-notes was practically prohibited. In that year

1 Principles of Currency, (Oxford and London, 1869,) p. 95.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

tbe total volume of bank-notes in the United Kingdom was
jf 39,297, 1 80 ; in Januafy, 1867, it was but £38.092,950. Com-
menting on this remarkable fact, R. H. Patterson, a Scotch
writer, says in a recent work, tliat though the note circulation
has remained stationary for more than a quarter of a century,
yet within that time the trade of Engiand has more than trebled ;
her exports and imports have increased from ;£i 30,000,000 to
j(r420,ooo,ooo.

" The bills, or comrnerctal currency by which our trade is carried 00,
hjrre simultaneously doubled in amount, and our banking deposits hare
increased fivefold, having risen from ;£8o,ooo,ooo to ^400,000,000,

" The means by which this progress has been accomplished have been
the extension of banking, the increased use of commercial currency
(bills), and, most of all, the development of the check system and ibe
establishment of the cteanng- house. In truth, money, whether in the fona
of bank-notes or coin, hardly plays any part in the processes by which
our rapidly expanding trade is facilitated, or even in the transactions c( -
banking. Startling as the fact may seem, not more than fire per cent of
banking transactions are made either in notes or coin. Of the innumera-
ble payments into banks, constituting dejKwits, and of the equally nu-
merous drafts upon hanks, or demands for repayment of those depoati,
ninety-five per cent (as has already been shown) are in the form of checks

and bills, only five per cent being in money, *. e. notes or coin

Money, whether bank-notes or coin, now constitutes merely the retail
currency of the country, — the medium in which we pay for the smaS
wants of the day ; for our dinner and cabs, our railway ticket, and petty
purchases in shopping. All else is done by means of checks and bills.
These checks and bills are the great moving power, — the form in which
alt the larger purchases of goods and property are made \ notes and coin
being only needed for petty payments." '

For the year ending October, 1869, the total exchanges through
the New York clearing-house amounted to $37,407,000,000, and
the cash balances were about $1,120,000,000, being but little
more than three per cent of the total transactions. And even
this small ratio of balances is paid mainly by checks and by a
transfer of accounts. Every year witnesses some new device
by which the use of actual money is economized.

I would not for a moment lose sight of the first great neces-
sity of all exchanges, that they be measured by real money, the
recognized money of the world ; nor of that other necessity next
in importance, that bank-notes or Treasury notes shall represent
' Sdence of Finance, {Edinburgh and London, tS6S,) pp- jfr-jS.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 549

real money, shall be of uniform value throughout the country,
and shall be sufficient in amount to effect all those exchanges
in which paper money is actually used. I would keep constantly
in view both these important factors. But that is a superficial
and incomplete plan of legislation which does not include in its
provisions for the safe and prompt transaction of business those
facilities which modern civilization has devised, and which have
so largely superseded the use of both coin and paper money.

The bank has become the indispensable agent and instrument
of trade throughout the civilized world, and not less in specie-
paying countries than in countries cursed by inconvertible cur-
rency. Besides its function of issuing circulating notes, it
serves as a clearing-house for the transactions of its custom-
ers. It brings the buyer and seller together, and enables them
to complete their exchanges. It brings debtors and creditors
together, and enables them to adjust their accounts. It brings
the capitalist and the tradesman together, and offers facilities
for credit far beyond the mere issue of its notes. It collects the
thousand little hoards of unemployed money, and through loans
and discounts converts them into active capital. In the lan-
guage of Professor Bowen, in his work on Political Economy,
just published, —

" A bank is a reservoir which collects in amounts available for use the
raindrops which would otherwise be lost by dispersion ; and it brings
borrowers and lenders together, knowing that their respective wants can
be supplied by concert and previous arrangement. The two legitimate
sources from which the bank can make loans are its capital and depos-
its But the question will be asked. How can the bank safely

make any use of the sums thus deposited, seeing that any number of
them are liable to be withdrawn at any moment ? The answer is easy.
The bank could not safely use the capital if it had but one depositor ; but
having many — hundreds, perhaps — it can safely employ the whole aver-
age amount of the deposits in discounting notes for its own profit, as ex-
perience shows that their average amount continues with little fluctuation,
the daily withdrawals by one set being constantly made up by fresh de-
posits from another set." ^

I find there are still those who deny the doctrine that bank
deposits form an effective addition to the circulation. But let
us see. A bank is established at a point thirty or forty miles
distant from any other bank. Every man within its circle has

^ American Political Economy, (New York, 1S70,) pp. 3r4, 315.

•%

550 CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

been accustomed to keep in his pocket or safe a considerable
sum of money. The average amount that be thus keeps is
virtually withdrawn from circulation, and for the time being is
cancelled, is dead. After the new bank is established, a large
portion of that average amount is deposited with liie bank, and
a smaller amount is carried in his safe or pocket. These accu-
mulated deposits placed in the bank at once constitute a fund
which can be loaned to those who need credit At least four
fifths of the average amount of deposits can be loaned out, tlius
converting dead capital into active circulation.

But the word deposits covers far more than the sums of actual
money placed in the bank by depositors. McLeod, in his great
work on Banking, says: "Credits standing in bankers' books,
from whatever source, arc called deposits. Hence, a deposit, in
banking language, always means a credit in a banker's books in
exchange for money or securities for money." Much the lai^er
proportion of all bank deposits arc of this class, — mere credits
on the books of the bank. Outside the bank these deposits are
represented by checks and drafts. Inside llic bank, they effect
settlements and make thousands of payments by mere trans-
fer from one man's account to that of another. This checking,
counter-checking, and transferring of credit amounts to a sum
vastly greater than all the deposits. No stronger illustration of
the practical use of deposits can be found than in the curious
fact that all the heavy payments made by the merchants and
dealers of the city of Amsterdam, for half a century, were made
through a supposed deposit that had entirely disappeared some
fifty years before its removal was detected. Who does not know
that the $600,000,000 of deposits reported every quarter as a
part of the liability of the national banks are mainly credits
that the banks have given to business men? The $200,000,000
now supposed to be deposited in the banks of New York never
existed there at any one time, nor even the fifth part of it.
About four fifths of the deposits are constantly loaned out to
customers. The declared deposits in the Boston banks are
about $50,000,000, and the mere shifting of this amount of
credits in the banks wipes out two or three hundred millions
of indebtedness every week. After alluding to this latter fact.
Professor Bo wen remarks: "The relative amount of the bank
circulation, or of the specie reserve, has nothing to do with this
result, any more than it has with the position of the planets, for

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. SSI

the whole process might go on undisturbed if there were not a
specie dollar or a paper dollar in existence."

If the analysis that I have attempted to make of the princi-
ples which govern trade and business be correct, it will aid in
ascertaining the wants of the country, and in determining what
legislation is necessary to meet the demands of business.

Mr. Speaker, I shall venture to hope that those who have
honored me with their attention thus far will agree that a mere
supply of currency, however abundant, will not meet the case.
Coin and currency form only the change, the pocket-money, of
trade. For the great transactions which the marvellous energies
of our people are carrying on, they need and will demand that
greater instrument of modern invention, - — that credit currency,
properly secured and guarded, which takes the forms of checks,
drafts, and commercial bills. And this brings me to the ques-
tion, How is the country now supplied with currency, and with
those other facilities for the transaction of business?

It ought to be understood everywhere that the great injustice
done to the Western and Southern portions of the country by
the present distribution of banking facilities is so flagrant that
it will not much longer be endured ; and if the wrong be not
soon righted, the overthrow of the national banking system is
imminent

In entering upon this question I am met by our philosophical
Eastern friends, who say, ** Put the currency wherever you please,
and, like water on the top of the mountain, it will find its level ;
the distribution, therefore, makes no difference, for the currency
will necessarily find its natural place."

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the truth asserted ; but insist that it
is not applicable to the case in hand. I offer, in answer, the
fact that the distribution of banking facilities under the State
system, before the war, is a better test of the wants of business
than the present distribution. What are the facts? In 1860-61,
in eleven of the Southern and Southwestern States, there were
two hundred and ninety banks of issue, having a capital of
$119,223,633, and a circulation of $74,153,545, besides specie
to the amount of $26,064,503. Contrast that with the present
situation. Trace a line from the ocean westward, by the south
line of Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana,
IlHnois, and Missouri, and we find that in the twelve States south
of that line, whose population in i860 was nine millions, there

552

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

are but seventy-one national banks, with a capital of only
$13,117,500, and a circulation of but $8,936,170. Besides the
increase of population, the four inilhon slaves have now become
users of currency. In lliose States there is not more than sev-
ent>--five cents per tapita of bank circulation. It is monstrous
to pretend that such a distribution is cither equitable or just

In 1S61, the banks of the six New England States had a
capital of $1 19.590,433, and a circulation of $44,991,285. NoW
the same Sutcs, with a population of 3,136,283. as shown by
the last census, have $1 50,000,000 of national bank capita], and
$104,500,910 of bank circulation. This is $33^' to each in-
habitant, an increase of one hundred and thirty-three per cent
since 1861, while in the Southern and Southwestern States the
circulation has been reduced eighty-eight per cent.

The States of the Northwest, where the increase of wealth
and population is greatest, have also suffered heavily from
this unequal and unjust distribution. Compare Wisconsin and
Rhode Island at the two periods : —

Cncutaliin, iWi.

CroitatioB, .»«.

1 74,620

*3-77J.i4'

> 1 1.486.900

775.SS.

4.3">.i;S

2.508.10.

\

Within the last decade, Wisconsin has increased in popula-
tion and wealth much more rapidly than Rhode Island; and
yet in amount of currency Rhode Island, which had one third
less than Wisconsin in 1861, has five times more in 1869,

I append a table showing the population of the States in
i860, the number of banks, their capital and circulation in 1861,
and the corresponding facts concerning the national banks at
the date of the last report.'

This inequality of distribution was brought about partly by
legislation, but mainly by a gross violation of the law.

Mr. Wood. Will the gentleman permit me to ask turn upon what
data, or basis, he makes his statement?

I will do so. The first national banking act, of February 25.
1863, provided for the entire amount of circulating notes to be
issued. It contained this clause : —

" That the entire amount of circulating notes to be issued under this

act shall not exceed ^300,000,000, of which sum ^150,000,000 shall be

apportioned to associations in the States, in the District of Columbia, and

> See Table A, » Ibc end of this Speech.

%.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 553

in the Territories, according to representative population, and the re-
mainder shall be apportioned by the Secretary of the Treasury among
associations formed in the several States, in the District of Columbia, and
in the Territories, having due regard to the existing banking capital, re-
sources, and business of such States, District, and Territories."

This provision contained two rules of distribution. First, that
$150,000,000 should be distributed according to population.
This would be about five dollars to each inhabitant. Secondly,
that the remaining $150,000,000 should be distributed with due
regard to the existing bank capital, resources, and business of
the country. In the revised act of June 3, 1864, this clause, pre-
scribing the rule of distribution, either by accident or design,
was repealed, but it was restored to the law by the act of March
3, 1865. At that time less than $70,000,000 of national bank
circulation had been issued. On the same day, however, another
act was passed, allowing any State bank having a paid up capital
of not less than $75,000 to become a national bank before the
1st of July, 1865. This provision, taken alone, would doubtless
be construed as suspending the rule of distribution ; but as it
and the distribution clause were approved on the same day^
they should have been construed together, and the State banks
should have been allowed to convert, subject to the rule of dis-
tribution. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller
of the Currency, however, allowed the conversion of State banks
to go on in disregard of this rule. In July, 1865, when the
privilege of conversion granted to the State banks had expired,
there had been but $131,452,158 of national bank currency
issued. Under any construction of the two acts of March 3,
1865, it was clearly the duty of the officers charged with the
execution of the law to limit all subsequent issues of such cur-
rency within the provisions of the rule of distribution. But
even after that date the rule was wholly neglected ; and before
January, 1867, the whole amount of circulation authorized by
law had been issued to a crowd of State banks that came rush-
ing into the national system, producing the great injustice that
we now experience.

Mr. Wood. If the gentleman from Ohio will permit me, I will say
right here, without interrupting his argument, that I apprehend he con-
founds banking capital with circulation.

Not at all. If the gentleman will refer to the printed tables,
he will see they arc referred to in separate columns.

554 CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

Mr. Wood. I am aware there is no difficulty in ascertaining the dis-
tribution of banking capital, and on that banking capital under the law
the circulation is permitted ; but it is no indication of the real amount of
circulation in existence. For instance, the gentleman has veij- properly
stated lliat the city of New York possesses one sixth of the amount al-
lowed ; but he has not stated the additional fact, that the State of New
York is continually sending its circulation into the West and South, and,
indeed, into every portion of the United States where the commerce and
business of those sections require additional circulation. Therefore the
circubtion we have is nol for our own local use; but is used everywhere
for the necessities of business and commerce.

I should be glad to yield to the gentleman, but I have not
the time. The gentleman from New York has led me directly
to the next point I had intended to discuss. It is not in tlie
nncqunl distribution of tlic currency alone, but in the unequal -
distribution of banking facilities, that the great injustice tim
perpetrated upon the West and South. They are deprived o^fl
what is far more important than circulation, — the facilities fiit^
banking and credit, which a proper distribution of banking cap<^
ital would give them. Destitute of banks, business men argB
compelled to keep on hand a large amount of currency, which
is thus virtually locked up from circulation. With banks prop-
erly distributed in the destitute neighborhoods, this currency
would be deposited, and would form the foundation of loans,
drafts, checks, and the vast transactions that banks enable the
people to perform. An increase of the greenback currency
would merely give additional circulation, but would afford none
of the advantages which accompany the establishment of banks.

I call attention to a circumstance which seriously aggravates
this inequality of distribution. The great fluctuations caused
by the uncertain value of our inconvertible currency have long
depressed legitimate business and greatly stimulated mere specu-
lation. The result Is, that our currency has been steadily flow-
ing into the centres of speculation, to be used in that fatal but
fascinating game which is played every day in the stock^xchange
and gold room. For example, during the summer of 1869, the
exchanges of the gold clearing-house of New York averaged
nearly $100,000,000 per day, more than ninety per cent of
which was used in mere financial gambling; and though the
material in which these speculators dealt was what Mr. Fisk
calls "phantom gold," yet in playing their reckless game they
kept locked up from the legitimate business of the country

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 555

millions on millions of currency. At the present moment
there is a glut of currency in New York, and a dearth of it
in the West. I read a passage from the money article of a late
New York paper : —

" The New York banks owe, May 28 ; —

On deposits . 1228,039,345

On circulation 33,132,478

Total 1261,171,823

Twenty-five per cent reserve would be. . . I65, 292,956
They hold, in gold and greenbacks . . . . 94,346,711

Excess ^g9>QS 3^755

" Rate for money four to five. Speculation in the gold room is duU"

It is not often that so many suggestive and important facts
are grouped together in the same place.

Mr. Ingersoll. It is four per cent on call, is it not?

Certainly. That is the meaning of the quotation. Ninety-
four millions of currency reserves in the vaults, — $29,ocx),ooo
more than the law requires, — money a drug at four and five per
cent, and all this because speculation in the gold room was dull ;
while millions of our industrious citizens find it diflficult to bor-
row money at ten and fifteen per cent ! It is marvellous with
what patience the American people permit themselves to be
robbed and defrauded !

These speculators are now waiting to see what financial laws
we pass, as my friend ^ before me suggests, and what influence
they will have on the operations of the gold room. In this sus-
pense, the gamblers of Wall Street are letting their money lie
idle to see which way the tide will turn. Let Congress neglect
to pass the legislation which is necessary to overcome the diffi-
culties of the situation, and we shall see the scenes of July,
August, and September last with its "Black Friday," re-enacted.
I hasten to say that I by no means indorse the notion that
Congress can determine, by any artificial mathematical rule,
just how the currency ought to be distributed through the coun-
try, or how much is needed ; but it cannot be denied that our
past experience and present situation demonstrate the outra-
geous injustice done to the West and South in regard to the
currency.

And now I inquire for a remedy. What shall it be? By

1 Mr. JudA

556 CVRJRBNCV ANP THE BANKS.

what means shall we supply the West and South with currencjp]
and banking facilities to meet the demands of their ra
creasing population and wealth? Shall it be by an immediate
increase of the volume of our paper money, to be followed by a
greater depreciation of the whole mass, an increase of prices,
and a great and disastrous disturbance of values and of all busi-
ness transactions? For myself, I do not hesitate to declare tliat
Such legislation would be in every way ruinous to tlie interests
and destructive to the credit of the country. I believe tliat the
volume of our paper currency is already too large, and diata
resumption of specie payments would reduce it.

But, Mr. Speaker, whatever may be our individual opinionSf j
it is clear that no measure of inflation can by any possibiliQ'' 1
become a law during the present session of Congress. The
following resolution, which passed the Senate without a dissent-
ing vote, on the 24th of February last, indicates that no meas-
ure of inflation can meet the assent of that body. I quote the
proceedings of the Senate on this subject, as recorded in the 1
Globe: —

"THE CURRENCY.

" Mb. Williams submitted the following resolution for coDsiden-
tion; —

" Resolved, That to add to the present irredeemable paper currency of
the country would be to render more difficult and remote the resump-
tion of specie payments, to encourage and foster the spirit of speculation,
to aggravate the evils produced by frequent and sudden fluctuations of
values, to depreciate the credit of the nation, and to check the healthful
tendency of legitimate business to settle down upon a safe and perma-
nent basis ; and therefore, in the opinion of the Senate, the existing vol-
ume of such currency ought not to be increased.

" The Vice-President. Is there objection to the present considera-
tion of the resolution?

" Mr. Sheruan. I hope not Let it [>ass.

" Mr. Sumner. Let it pass.

" The Vice-Preside-vt. The Chair hears no objection to the present
consideration of the resolution, and it is before the Senate.

" The resolution was agreed to."

It is equally clear that no measure for the resumption of
specie payments that includes contraction of the currency as
one of its provisions can pass this House, during the present
Congress. Shut up within these limitations, practically forbid-
den either to increase or diminish, the volume of the currency,

x

1

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 557

the Committee on Banking and Currency were instructed by the
House of Representatives, February 21, 1870,' to perform the
duty described in the following resolution : " Resolved^ That, in
the opinion of the House, the business interests of the country
require an increase in the volume of circulating currency, and the
Committee on Banking and Currency are instructed to report to
the House, at as early a day as practicable, a bill increasing the
currency to the amount of at least $50,000,000."

Under these circumstances the duty of the committee was
very difficult to perform. Shut up between Scylla on the one
side and Charybdis on the other, and instructed by the peremp-
tory resolution, what could the committee do? It must give
more banking facilities. It must give more circulating cur-
rency. But it must neither increase nor decrease the volume of
the currency.

One term in the resolution was the lamp by which our feet
were guided. That term was ** circulating currency." It did
not mean greenbacks ; manifestly not, for my friend from Illi-
nois^ had again and again tried to lead the House to pronounce
in favor of an increase of greenback circulation, and had failed
every time by more than twenty votes. Did it mean an increase
of bank circulation? The House could hardly have meant that,
considering the impossibility of getting such a measure through
both houses of Congress. " Circulating currency," was the term
used ; *' circulating currency " was the key to the situation. In
bank credits — checks, drafts, bills of exchange, and certificates of
deposit — an increase of circulating currency could be obtained
without an inflation of the total volume of greenbacks and bank-
notes. Guided by these views, and thus limited, the committee
introduced the measure now before the House. It is the result
of a compromise of many differences of opinion, and perhaps
suits no member of the committee in all its features ; yet, on
the whole, they believe it will give the needed relief, with the
least disturbance to the business of the country, and without
injury to the public credit. I now invite the attention of the
House to its provisions.

The bill aims at two leading objects : to provide for a more
equitable distribution of the currency without contraction or
inflation, and without increased expense to the government,
and to provide for free banking on a specie basis. The first of

^ Mr. IngersolL

5s8 CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

these objects it is proposed to reach by the provisions of the
first six and the last tliree sections of the bill. The second
object is provided for in the remaining sections, being the sev-
enth, eighth, and ninth.

The provisions for the more equitable distribution of the cur-
rency and the increase of banking facilities arc the following: —

First The issue of $95,000,000 of national bank notes in
States having less than their proper proportion.

Second. The cancellation and retirement of the three per cent
certificates, which now amount in round numbers to $45,500,000,
and the cancellation and retirement of $39,500,000 of United
States notes.

Third. When the whole amount of the $95,000,000 of ad-
ditional notes shall have been issued, circulation shall be with-
drawn from States having an excess, and distributed to States
that are deficient, in such sums as may be required, not cx-
. cceding in the aggregate $25,000,000, There were two reasons
for choosing $95,000,000 as the amount to be issued.

The first was, that, by a comparison of the circulation as no»
distributed with the amounts that should have been issued ao*
cording to the rule of distribution, it was found that the defi-
ciency in the States which had less than their proper propor-
tions amounted to nearly $95,000,000. This is fully exhibited
in the following table: —

List of Stata which secured less than th4ir proportion 0/ National Sank
Circulation under existing laws, together wUh the balance to which each
of them is entitled.

Virginia ^8,596,030

West Virginia . . . 800,450

Illinois 1,887,715

Michigan . . . . 1,375.745

Wisconsin .... 3,703,398

Iowa 1,191,413

Kansas 3O5i50o

Missouri .... 5,346,475

Kentucky .... 8,133,380

Tennessee .... 7,574,449

Louisiana .... 9,486,41 1

Mississippi .... 5,311,617

Nebraska .... 11.500

Georgia 8,186,400

North Carolina
South Carolina
Alabama
Oregon . .
Texas . .
Arkansas .
Utah. . .
California .
Florida . .
Dakota . .
New Mexico
Washington Tenitoiy

Total,

j 7, 1 66,800

7,373-5<»

7.136,353

383,000

3.553.465

3,545,100

103,000

3,003,000

9S5.SOO

37,000

486,000

83,500

^94,43 3,61 1

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 559

The second reason was that the House had instructed the
committee to provide for $50,000,000 for the business wants of
the country ; and as the Senate had already passed a bill provid-
ing for the issue of $45,000,000 in lieu of the three per cents, the
two amounts would make $95,000,000.

Aside from any question of redistribution of the currency, it
will hardly be denied that these three per cent certificates should
at once be redeemed. It will be remembered that they were
issued to aid in retiring the compound-interest notes. The
Secretary of the Treasury, in his last annual report, made the
following recommendation in regard to these three per cents.

"The three per cent certificates are a substitute, to a considerable
extent, for United States notes, being largely held by the banks as a por-
tion of their reserve, and thus indirectly, though not to their full nominal
value, they swell the volume of currency.

" I recommend that provision be made for the redemption of the three
per cent certificates within a reasonable time, and, as a compensating
measure for the reduction in the amount of currency which would thus
be caused, that authority be given to grant circulation to banks, in the
States where the banking capital is less than the share to which they
would be entitled, to an amount not exceeding I3 5, 000,000 in the aggre-
gate. The redemption of the three per cent certificates, and the addi-
tions to the banking capital, might be so arranged as not to produce a
serious disturbance in the finances or business of the country, while ad-
ditional banking capital would be supplied to the sections now in need of
it, and this without any increase of the volume of circulation." ^

As a loan they are the most dangerous form of our interest-
bearing debt. They are payable on demand, and in any great
fitiancial crisis might be precipitated upon the Treasury at
once, to the great distress and discredit of the government.
They are mainly used by the national banks in the redemption
cities as reserves; and it is a scandal that these banking in-
stitutions should be permitted to draw interest on the reserves
which they are required to hold to secure their circulation and
deposits. There is no stronger ground of objection to the na-
tional banking system than that such partiality should be per-
mitted. The country banks have no advantage of these three
per cents, for the reports of the Comptroller of the Currency
show that none of them are held outside of city banks. Not
only are we allowing interest on these reserves, but their value

1 Message from the President, with the Reports of the Heads of Departments,
(Washington, 1870,) pp. 32, 33.

56& CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

has steadily appreciated, and they are to-day worth nearly
twenty cents more than when they were first issued.

In the next place, the bill provides for the withdrawal and
cancellation of $39,500,000 of United States notes. The first
effect of this decrease will be to appreciate the value of the
remaining mass, and thus tend towards specie payments. But
a more important result will be that, as the national banks are
required to keep the valus of their own circulation equal to the
value of greenbacks, they wilt be called upon to exchange their
own notes for greenbacks on demand. This will tend to call
back the circulation of every national bank to its own neighbor-
hood, and thus more equitably distribute the whole volunae of
circulation.

Notwithstanding the present glut of currency in New Yori^
the brokers of Wall Street join in full cry against this bill, be-
cause it proposes to take away some of the vast surplus they
hold, and distribute it to the destitute portions of the country.
It is a little singular that it is severely attacked in the public
journals on exactly opposite grounds. The critics on one sidfl
declare it is a severe measure of contraction, and those on the
other declare, with equal positiveness, that it will result in great
inflation. I invite the attention of those who charge that this
bill contracts the currency, to the following considerations.

This bill proposes to redeem $45,500,000 of three per cents,
and to cancel $39,500,000 of United States notes, making a total
withdrawal of $85,000,000, and to issue $95,000,000 of national
bank notes, the issue in every case to precede the withdrawal, so
as to avoid any shock to business. This will leave in existence
$10,000,000 more of paper currency than we now have, count-
ing the whole value of the three per cents equivalent to cur-
rency. But the three per cents serve as currency only when
they are used as bank reserves, and, as a matter of fact, they
have never all been held as bank reserves at any one time.
During the last year and a half there has been an average of
$3,000,000 of them that was not held by the banks. The correct
statement therefore is, that this bill will create between twelve
and thirteen millions more of paper money than now exists.

A portion of the committee were in favor of making the with-
drawals exactly equal to the issues ; but the fact that all the
national bank notes issued will require a greenback reserve of
from fifteen to twenty-five per cent of the amount of circulation,

\

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 561

led the committee to make this increase of the issue counter-
balance the virtual contraction caused by the withdrawal of such
reserves. In my judgment, the additional reserves required by
this bill will not in fact decrease the amount of legal-tender
notes in actual circulation, for the reason that the national banks
hold a much larger reserve than the law requires. The official
reports show that, during the last fifteen months, the reserves
held by the banks have averaged $224,000,000, while they were
required by law to hold but $169,000,000. It will thus be seen
that they constantly hold $55,000,000 more than the law re-
quires. The new reserves required by this bill will doubtless be
drawn from the surplus, and not from the active circulation of
the country. There is, therefore, no ground for the assertion
that this bill contracts the currency.

I wish I were able to demonstrate also that there is no infla-
tion in the bill. Here is the feature most unsatisfactory to me.
For four years past I have pleaded for some practical legislation,
looking toward a gradual and safe return to specie payments.
It has been clear to my mind that resumption is impossible so
long as the present volume of inconvertible currency is main-
tained. I have, therefore, strenuously opposed all attempts to
increase its volume. But, deeply impressed with the necessity
of giving larger facilities to the West and South, and of re-
lieving the national bank system from the odium which the
present unequal distribution brings upon it, I have consented,
with reluctance, to this feature of the pending bill, believing that
the benefits conferred by the bill will be greater than the evils
that will result from the measure of inflation that it contains.
The actual increase of circulating notes which it authorizes is
about $13,000,000; but the great increase of credit currency
in the form of checks and drafts will, in my judgment, result
in a very considerable expansion of paper credits. I cannot, in
justice to myself, let this feature of the bill pass without ex-
pressing my regret that the state of opinion in the House and
country requires its enactment.

Mr. Lynch. This bill, I believe, provides for I95, 000,000 of addi-
tional bank circulation, and for the retirement of I45, 000,000 of three per
cent certificates and $40,000,000 of greenbacks, making 185,000,000.
From the ^19 5, 000,000 of bank circulation authorized by this bill is to
be deducted a reserve on circulation of twenty-five per cent in certain
cities, and fifteen per cent in others, averaging say twenty per cent ; to

VOL. I. 36

562 CUHHENCY AND THE BANKS.

which must be added the reserve on deposits, which, being equal on the
average to the circulation, would take Jig.ooo.ooo more, tnaiing a total
reserve of 538,000,000 to be deducted from the Jgs.ooo.ooo author-
ized, leaving but 557,000,000 aclnallj' going into circulation, while the
amount actually retired by the bill is 885,000,000. So that under the
operation of this bill there would be a contraction of the currency to
the extent of 2i8,ooo,ooo. I would like to know how the geiideroan
figures out an increase of currency under this bill.

The gentleman says thnt the $95,000,000 will not be all in
circulation, because greenbacks equivalent to twenty per cent
of it will have to be locked up in the vaults of the new banks as
reserves, I answer my friend, that the banks now keep on ao
average $55,000,000 more of reserves than they are required
to keep by law. They have been doing so for more than two
years past. All that will happen, therefore, will be that the 1
volume of surplus reserves will be reduced. It will not lock up
any more currency; indeed, it will liberate —

Mr. Lynch. Docs the gentleman undertake to say that, when the i
banks are increased in number, the excess of reserve which they keep.'
will not be increased in the same ralio ? How will the excess of reserve
he reduced by an increase in the number of banks?

I have examined with great care the condition of the reserves
of the national banks, and I find that in New York and other
money centres, for reasons that 1 have already stated, there is
an immense surplus reserve, far greater than the reserve in the
country generally. Now, this surplus will find its way into the
reserves of the new banks. The surplus reserve will undoubt-
edly be reduced when the banking system is extended, when
the number of banks in the West and South is increased, and
the volume of legal tenders is reduced in proportion to the
increase of national currency. When the relative value of
greenbacks is thus increased, the banks will be called upon to
redeem their notes in legal tender, as the law now requires.
This will keep the bank-notes nearer home than now. They
will flow back from the money centres, and find their way into
localities where they are needed for legitimate business. One
of the evils of our present system is, that the national banks
rarely redeem any of their notes. They are not asked to do so.
They are bound by law to redeem them in greenbacks, but no
one demands it. Let the system be extended; let the ratio
between greenbacks and national bank notes be changed from

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 563

$3CX5,ooo,ooo of national currency and $400,000,000 of green-
backs, as it now is, to exactly the opposite condition ; then the
banks will be called on to redeem, and that will keep their cir-
culation at home, and keep it better distributed.

I recur again to a point already made, that the facility for
obtaining bank credits will be vastly increased by this bill. I
am willing it shall be so. I can reconcile myself to it only on
one ground. The only proper basis on which such currency
should circulate is the business needs of the country.

But some gentlemen say, " Increase the greenback currency;
issue more; it is popular; it is safe; it is cheap; give it liber-
ally, and satisfy the wants of the country.*' This brings us to
the question whether we shall have the national bank currency,
or a currency issued directly by the government. All those
who believe that the national banks should be overthrown, and
that the government should itself become the manufacturer of
the currency of the country, will doubtless oppose this bill in
all its provisions. There are a few gentlemen, whose opinions
I very greatly respect, who believe such a substitution ought to
take place. I disagree with them for the following reasons.

In the first place, it is the experience of all nations, and it is
the almost unanimous opinion of all eminent statesmen and
financial writers, that no nation can safely undertake to supply
its people with a paper currency issued directly by the govern-
ment. And, to apply that principle to our own country, let me
ask if gentlemen think it safe to subject any political party
that may be in power in this country to the great temptation
of over issues of paper money in lieu of taxation. In times of
high political excitement, and on the eve of a general election,
when there might be a deficiency in the revenues of the coun-
try, and Congress should see the necessity of levying additional
taxes, the temptation to supply the deficit by an increased issue
of paper money would be overwhelming. Thus the whole busi-
ness of the country, the value of all contracts, the prices of all
commodities, the wages of labor, would depend upon a vote of
Congress. For one, I dare not trust the great industrial inter-
ests of this country to such uncertain and hazardous chances.
But even if Congress and the administration should be always
superior to such political temptations, still I affirm, in the sec-
ond place, that no human legislature is wise enough to deter-
mine how much currency the wants of this country require.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

Test it in this House to-day. Let every member mark down
the amount which he believes the business of the country re-
quires, and who does not know that the amounts will vary by
hundreds of millions? But a third objection, stronger even
than the last, is that such a currency possesses no power of
adapting itself to the business of the country. Suppose the
total issue should be five hundred millions, or seven hundred
millions, or any amount you please; it might be abundant for
spring and summer, and yet, wlien the great body of agricul-
tural products were moving off to market in the fall, it might
be totally insufiicient. Fix any volume you please, and, if it be
just sufficient at one period, it may be redundant at another, of
insufficient at another. No currency can meet the wants of this
country unless it is founded directly upon the demands of busi-'
ness, and not upon the caprice or the political selfishness rf'
the party in power.

What regulates now the loans and discounts and credits of'
our national banks? The business of the country. The amount
increases, decreases, or remains stationary, as business is fluo
tuating or steady. This is a natural form of e.-cchangc. based
upon the business of the country, and regulated by its changes.
And when that happy day arrives when the whole volume of
our currency is redeemable in gold at the will of the holder,
and is recognized by all nations as equal to money, then the
whole business of banking, the whole volume of currency, the
whole amount of credits, whether in the form of checks, drafts,
or bills, will be regulated by the same general law, — the busi-
ness of the country. Business is hke the level of the ocean,
from which all measurements of heights and depths are made.
Though tides and currents may for a time disturb, and tempests
vex and toss its surface, still, through calm and storm, the
grand level rules all its waves, and lays its measuring-lines on
every shore. So our business, which, in the aggregated de-
mands of the people for exchange of values, marks the ebb
and flow, the rise and fall, of the currents of trade, forms the
base-line from which to measure all our financial legislation, and
is the only safe rule by which the volume of our currency can
be determined.

But there is another point to which I desire to call attention.
Whatever may have been our opinions and wishes hitherto,
since this session began, the Supreme Court of the United

I

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 565

States have made a decision which adds a new and important
element to this question. The court has declared that the legal
tender notes are not, and cannot be made, a legal tender for
debts contracted before their issue. Now, I ask gentlemen to
remember that my friend from Illinois,^ who is the champion of
greenback issues on this side of the House, realized at once the
importance and effect of that decision ; for, within two or three
days after the decision was announced, — I believe it was the
very next day, — he proposed an amendment to the Constitu-
tion of the United States, providing that it should be lawful for
Congress to authorize the issue of Treasury notes, and make
them a legal tender in the payment of all debts ; thereby admit-
ting that he believed such an amendment necessary, in order
that such an issue could be made. Gentlemen may say that
we can issue these paper notes, omitting the legal tender pro-
vision. But does any one think it wise or safe to add another
element of distraction and uncertainty to our currency, in the
form of a new note not receivable for old debts, or indeed for
any debts, except as the parties may agree? I call the atten-
tion of gentlemen to the difficulties in the way of such legisla-
tion, in view of the late decision of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Ingersoll. Do I understand the gentleman from Ohio to assume
that the Supreme Court have decided that it was not within the power
of Congress to make a legal tender that would be valid for pre-existing
debts, and that they did not stop when they decided that Congress had
not done so by the act under which the legal tenders were issued ?

The court decided in unmistakable terms that such a power
did not reside in Congress. Nay, the decision went much fur-
ther than this. The line of reasoning pursued by the court
leads us to the belief that, when the proper case arises, that
tribunal, unless its opinion shall have been changed by adding
to its members, will decree that paper notes cannot be made a
legal tender by act of Congress. Indeed, the argument in the
dissenting opinion was, that a legal tender could be defended
only as a necessary means of carrying on war ; that it was a war
measure, based on the war power of the Constitution. Now,
all the departments of the government have decreed that, on
the loth of August, 1866, the war had ended.^

' Mr. Ingersoll.

* The case referred to above is that of Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wallace, 604, in
which it was decided, December, 1S69, three judges out of seven dissenting, that the

566 CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

Mr. Speaker, with this condition of things before us, will this
House of Representatives venture to embark again on the
boundless sea of irredeemable paper money, to be issued by
the direct authority of Congress?

But I must hasten to consider the second object of the bill, —
namely, free banking on a gold basis. It may be urged that
this provision will not now be used. If it should not, still it will
stand in the law, beckoning and inviting the country to specie
payments. But I am assured by many gentlemen from the
Pacific coast that banks will be there established on a gold
basis. I am assured, also, that in the cities of Charleston and
New Orleans, and to some extent in the city of New York,
where the international trade is conducted in gold, such banks
will soon be established. My friend near me, from Texas,^ says
that in his State they will be established. All the circulation
issued under this clause of the bill — and I call the attention of
my friend from Illinois^ to that fact — will be an absolute in-
crease of the currency. I am assured in the strongest terms
that such banks will be established.

There is another consideration which I desire to present to
the House, and it is this. We are not permitted to choose be-
tween banks and no banks. We are not permitted to choose
between a national banking system, and a greenback system
managed immediately by the officers of the Treasury. The na-
tional banks exist now only because they occupy the field, and
the ten per cent tax on State circulation prevents the issue of
State bank notes. If we abolish the national banks, and under-
take to conduct the business of this country by issues of green-
back currency, the influence of the State banks and of banking
capital will soon compel the repeal of the ten per cent tax ; and
then will spring up again all the wild-cat banks against which
the gentleman from Illinois^ declaimed so eloquently a few
days ago.

We are shut up, in my judgment, to one of two things : either
to maintain, extend, and amend the present national banking

clause in the acts of 1862 and 1S63 which makes United States notes a legal tender
in payment of all debts, public and private, in so far as it applies to debts contracted
before the passage of those acts, is unwarranted by the Constitution. In the legal-
tender cases, Knox v. Lee, and Parker v. Davis, 12 Wallace, 457, decided Jauuar}*,
1872, the court having been reorganized, this decision was overruled, four judges
out of nine dissenting, and the constitutionality of the clause as applying to debts
contracted both lx;fore and after the passage of the acts was allSrmed.
1 Mr. Dcgener. - Mr. Ingersoll.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 567

system, or to go back to the old system, under which every State
was tinkering at the currency, without concert of action, uncon-
trolled by any general law. Then banks were established under
the laws of twenty-nine different States ; they were granted dif-
ferent privileges, subjected to different restrictions, and their
circulation was based on a great variety of securities, of differ-
ent qualities and quantities. In some States, the bill-holder was
secured by the daily redemption of notes in the principal city;
in others, by the pledge of State stocks ; and in others, by coin
reserves. But as State stocks differed greatly in value, all the
way from the repudiated bonds of Mississippi to the premium
stock of Massachusetts, there was no uniformity of security, and
the amount of coin reserves required in the different States was
so various as to make that security almost equally irregular. It
required the study of a lifetime to understand the various sys-
tems. There were State banks with branches, independent
banks, free banks, banks organized under a general law, and
banks with special charters. They represented all varieties of
condition and credit. They were solvent, suspended, closed,
wound up, broken, according as the fluctuations of trade, and
the wisdom or folly, the honesty or rascality of their managers,
dictated. Their notes had no uniformity of value, and nearly
all of them — especially those of the West and South — lost
heavily in current value when carried beyond the limits of the
State. Examine a Bank-Note Reporter for 1862-63, and con-
sider the mass of trash there set down as the paper currency of
the country.

In November, 1862, the circulation of bank paper in the loyal
States was $167,000,000. The State securities for this amount
were only $40,000,000, leaving over $120,000,000 inadequately
secured. In only nine of the States did the law require the cir-
culation to be secured by State bonds. In the State of Illinois,
from 185 1 to 1863, the failures of banks numbered eighty-nine,
and their paper ranged from thirty-eight per cent to one hun-
dred per cent below par. Of the $12,000,000 of bank circulation
in Illinois, the people lost two or three millions directly, besides
the indirect loss of as many millions more by derangement of
business and ruin to private interests. Of ten suspended banks
in Minnesota, the notes were redeemed at an average of less
than thirty cents on the dollar. Of thirty-six broken banks of
Wisconsin, only six redeemed their notes at so high a rate as

568 CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

eighty cents on the dollar, Even as early as i860, a time of
great commercial prosperity, the official report of only eighteen
States showed 147 banks broken, 234 closed, and 131 worthless.
Such was the condition of 512 banks; the whole number in
those States being 1,231.

But there was one kind of paper issues which must not
be overlooked, — the vast circulation issued by counterfeiters.
There were in circulation in 1862 about seven thousand differ-
ent kinds of notes issued by the fifteen hundred banks. From
statistics carefully compiled, it was ascertained that there were
in existence, that year, over three thousand kinds of altered
notes, seventeen hundred varieties of notes ostensibly issued by
banks having no existence, and over eight hundred varieties of
imitations. Thus it appears that there were more than five thou-
sand five hundred varieties of fraudulent notes in circulation;
and the dead weight of all the losses occasioned by them fell at
last upon the people, who were not expert in such matters.
There were in 1862 but two hundred and fifty-tbree banks
whose notes had not been altered or imitated.

Let it be remembered that for nearly half a century- a large
part of tlic revenues of the genera! government were received
in the notes of these State banks, in all stages of discredit and
depreciation, and with all the attendant risks of counterfeited and
altered bills. It is a fact worthy of remembrance, that in 1 8 1 9 the
Secretary of the Treasury was compelled to borrow $500,000 to
meet a foreign debt of that amount; and at that moment there
was $22,000,000 surplus funds in the treasury, out of which he
could not cull enough current funds to meet the demand.

In obedience to a resolution of Congress, adopted January 7,
1 841, the Secretary of the Treasury made a report, showing that
from 1789 to 1841 three hundred and ninety-five banks had be-
come insolvent, and that the aggregate loss sustained by the
government and people of the United States was $365,451,497.
The report also showed that the total amount paid by the peo-
ple of the United States to the banks, for the use of them, dur-
ing the ten years preceding 1841, amounted to the enormous
sum of $282,000,000.

Startling as these figures are, they fall far short of exhibiting
the magnitude of the losses which this system occasioned. The
financial journals of that period agree in the following estimate
of the losses occasioned by the revulsion of 1837.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 5^9

On bank circulation and deposits 1 54,000,000

Bank capital, failed and depreciated 248,000,000

State stock depreciated 100,000,000

Company stock depreciated 80,000,000

Real estate depreciated 300,000,000

Total $ 782,000,000

The State bank system was a chaos of ruin, in which the busi-
ness of the country was again and again ingulfed. The people
rejoice that it has been swept away, and they will not consent
to its re-establishment. In its place we have the national bank
system, based on the bonds of the United States, and sharing
the safety and credit of the government. The notes of these
banks are made secure : first, by a deposit of government bonds
worth at least ten per cent more than the whole value of the
notes ; secondly, by a paramount lien on all the assets of the
banks ; thirdly, by the personal liability of all the shareholders
to an amount equal to the capital they hold ; and fourthly, by
the absolute guaranty of the government to redeem them at the
national treasury if the banks fail to do so. Instead of seven
thousand different varieties of notes, as in the State system, we
have now but ten varieties, each uniform in character and ap-
pearance. Like our flag, they bear the stamp of nationality,
and are honored in every part of the Union.^ Now, I do not
speak for the banks ; I have no personal interest in them ; but
I speak for the interests of trade and the business of the coun-
try, which demand that no measure shall pass this House which
may rudely shock them.

The $25,000,000 of circulation which is to be redistributed,
and the redistribution of which is not likely soon to be required,
will be taken, when needed, from States having a great surplus.
About $9,000,000 will come from the banks of New York that
have over $1,000,000 of circulation each, and the balance will
come from about eighty-four banks in three other States, which
will still have a great excess over their proper proportion. I
shall reserve for a later period in this discussion my remarks on
the funding provisions of the bill embodied in the third, fourth,
and fifth sections.

» The above paragraphs, in great part, are reproduced from the Uer &cas-
sion of American Banking, found in the speech delivered at MoaBtTcno% Ohio,
August 14, 1869. See antCy pp. 491 et seq.

CURRENCy AND THE BANKS.

\

Accompanying Mr. Garfield's pamphlet edition of this Speech were two
tables. Only the totals of his groups of Slates are here given, not the States
one by one.

Bants fl/

Umi in the UnUtd Statti

rt«V Ca/rti/ a-i/ Cirmiatian.

Pupul.-

SdM Buk>

0..8*-.

N.iioD»l Bala, Oa. 1, 185.^

No.

CapiBl.

0«uU.™,

No.

C*i«ai.

Cireuliiion.

Eawera Suia ' . . .

3.ui,iaj

5o5

»"J.7oS.7oS

»4..«...aj

*9.

».SO,B33.6j>

».04,S0M'fl

Middl. 5»tE. «...

S..sS,,so

48(1

ito,o3S,3fiO

(J. 871.81'

sa?

.9J.J04"W

,rt,B.7.40.

Southttn Snta ' . .

4.44°,]S9

■47

i6,lSi,M.

J9.!SJ,7t"

4;

B,ll66.6«

54>q.lia

b/Mpfi-fi

U)

64«i.6i.

Jt.W*!

S6

>J.i]f>b»

*'»^'S

Wuum Suu>> . . .

7.939.U1

3>9

16.576,611

i»^7.c.!6

4lt

6j,IOJ,J«

Diitricl ol C.ilumbi*
JUd Tenitoriei" .

Graod laUl ...

l6a,j9S

«

.pOSftOK

..*,-,.

J..«4-8g

■,6<^

110,7™.!)! J

™,.;j,iS,

1,0.,

4]].i6j.&ic

'W.Mj.'i?

Spc6=i.b»fai=.96, .

*»J.67irfTO 1

if Appa-lienmntt b/ CireuUmfn iirij.-r iMf ijeiiUrtg Laai, lie fratnt m
Circuiatimt of the difftrml Slates and Terriloriei, and viMal it woutd it under the Pro-
vitima of theftHding Bill.

^^-

CircuUlLon.

*SH™

Amount of
CircullliHi

by (h. BilL

J^^

under (In

uiddi>s»L«i . ..

SoulhunSBtH > . .

WnlEfflStilHi . .

Dinriclof Columbl.
indTtmloriHi .

Cnnii lotJ . . .

ttS,5aS.<EB
94,918,)"

6o,r96,JOO
'.M4-S~

r.a4.S<>9.9>9

.*B17,401

s, 919, no

9.74S.'4o
91,101,311

fio,,;o9,9>9
ii6,Si7,4D.

J9,008.(™

S8,«J3,™
6..94t,6.,

.,.83,57.

*W.J*=.8J4
..7,646,887
4S,Jt9,o6o
68,7.7.!j«

». 4.6,7"

»I5,H9,045

»8o,44.

19.7S9.7]]

>9,74CV7.1

840,69"

>99,96S,1«>

.99,789,88.

394...1.10,

J,4,..l.S.l

•i-"^

I19,t.),6l>

1 Maine, New Hampshire, Vermotlt, Massachiuetts, Rhode IsUnd, Connecticut

* New York. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland.

» Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Soulh Carolina, Georgia, Florida.

* Alabama. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri. Teias-

* Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas,
Nevada, Nebraska.

■ The Territories are Colorado, Utah, Montana, and Idaho, with the addition in (he
t^r^mi t.,hi^ ri n.ilinta. New Mexico, and Washington.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.^

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

June 15, 1870.

The House of Representatives never came to a direct vote upon the
bill discussed in the speech of June 7, 1870. June 8, pending the ques-
tion, " Shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time now? " the House
adjourned, the effect of which was to send the bill to the bottom of all
the bills on the Speaker's table. Here it was impossible to reach it that
session. But the Senate had sent a bill to the House, February 3, en-
titied, " An Act to provide a National Currency of Loan Notes, and to
equalize the Distribution of Circulating Notes," and this bill had been
referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency. June 9th, Mr.
Garfield got the committee together, and procured action authorizing
him to report the Senate bill, with an amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute. This substitute contained the main features of the earlier House
bill. Thus the whole subject was again brought before the House. Pend-
ing this second bill, Mr. Garfield delivered the following speech, which
is here somewhat abridged.

MR. SPEAKER, — Few measures have had a more eventful
career in the House of Representatives than the one that
is now about to meet the fate of a final vote. Two days and an
evening of stormy debate, and two more days of voting and
manoeuvring for and against it, have brought the bill to this
hour in precisely the same shape in which it left the hands of
the Committee on Banking and Currency. I shall not weary
the House to-day with an elaborate speech, nor shall I reiter-
ate any of the arguments hitherto advanced, demonstrating the
necessity of passing this bill. I will first state the condition of

1 Mr. Garfield gave this speech the title of " The Currency Debate."

572

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

the bill, the character of its leading provisions and of the pcnd*
ing amendments, and then review briefly some points made in
the debate since I last addressed the House.

This substitute consists of four sections. She first section
authorizes the issue of $g5,ocx>,ooo of national bank notes to
banking associations organized or to be organized in States that
have less than their proper proportion, under the laws now
regulating the distribution of national currency. It limits the
circulation of any new bank to $500,000; and provides that, if
one of the States having a deficiency shall not take tlie full
amount to which it is entitled, other States in deficiency may
take the balance. That is the substance of the first section.

The second section provides that on the first day of every
month there shall be reported to the Secretary of the Treasury
the amount of notes which has been issued under this act dur-
ing the previous month ; and that the Secretary of the Treasury
shall immediately redeem and cancel an equivalent amount of
the three per cent certificates until $45,500,000 shall have been
cancelled.

Thus the inflation of the currency will proceed for one montli,
at the end of which time the cancelling of an equivalent amount
of three per cent certificates will take place. This process is to
continue until the $45,500,000 of the three per cent certificates
is exhausted. As the bill stands, the process of issue and can-
cellation will then go on beyond the amount of the three per
cents, until $95,000,000 of national bank notes shall have been
issued, and $39,500,000 of legal tenders, in addition to the
$45,500,000 of three per cents is cancelled.

At this point the committee allowed a member of the com-
mittee, the gentleman from Illinois,' to off'er an amendment,
which strikes out tlie clause requiring the cancellation of
$39,500,000 of greenbacks. If the House shall agree to that
amendment, the second section, in connection with the first,
will authorize the issue of $95,000,000 of national bank notes,
and the cancellation of $45,500,000 of three per cents. This
will leave, according to the estimation of some, an inflation of
$50,000,000; according to others, not so much ; but according
to all, an increase to some extent.

Mr. Cox, I would like to inquire of the gentleman what, in his ju(^-
meot, would be the amount of the inflation under the substitute of the
1 Mr. Judd.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 573

committee, and what would be the effect as regards inflation of the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Illinois.

Two different calculations have been made, which I will give.
Ninety-five million dollars of national bank notes issued to the
banks will require an average of twenty per cent of the same
amount of greenbacks to be locked up in their vaults as a re-
serve to secure the circulation: twenty per cent of $95,000,000
is $19,000,000. It cannot be said, therefore, that there would
be an inflation to the full amount of the difference between
$95,000,000 and $45,500,000. It would be an inflation to the
full amount of $95,000,000, according to that calculation, less
$19,000,000, or an increase of $31,500,000.

Mr. Judd. I ask the gentleman in this connection to explain how
the place of the three per cent certificates is to be supplied.

I will do so. The three per cent certificates, with the excep-
tion of two or three millions of them, have been held and are
held as bank reserves in place of greenbacks. Therefore, when
redeemed and cancelled, their place must be supplied by the
actual deposit of greenbacks, dollar for dollar, in their place.
Therefore, to cancel the $45,500,000 of three per cents is a
direct contraction of the currency by just that amount. So
the issue of $95,000,000 of national bank notes will be an infla-
tion of $95,000,000 of money, minus $45,500,000 of three per
cents, minus $19,000,000 of reserves required by it, which two
together, subtracted from $95,000,000, leave $31,500,000 as the
amount of inflation. This is one view. The other is that taken
by my colleague on the committee,^ who insisted in his speech
that we must make allowance also for the reserves required to
secure deposits ; because the deposits of the new banks will re-
quire also an average of twenty per cent of greenbacks locked
up as reserves to secure such deposits. As a rule, the deposits
exce^ in amount the total circulation. If we take the amount
of deposits in the new banks at $100,000,000, and consider the
reserves required to secure them as a contraction, we must add
$20,000,000 more to the amount of virtual contraction, thus
leaving the resulting inflation at $11,500,000. I give these as
the two estimates. I think that the deposits and banking facili-
ties developed by the bill will more than balance the contraction
caused by the reserves to secure circulation and deposits. But

1 Mr. Lynch.

CUSRBNCY AND THE BANKS.

as these new banks are to be distributed more in the rural dis-
tricts than in the cities, it is presumed that tlieir deposits will
not be so great as the average of all the banks. That concludes
all I desire to say concerning the second section,

Mk. Burchard. I aak the gentleman from Ohio if there would ne-
cessarily be an mcrease of deposits by the creation of national banks.
Would not tliese national banks take the place of the private bankers and
brokers, and would there not be a transfer of the deposits from the biter
to these new banking associations? I ask him also whether these private
bankers do not keep an average reserve of depasits for their business
equal to that required by law for these banking associations.

I do not suppose there will be so large an increase as though
there were now no private banks ; but there will doubtless be
an increase of deposits from private hoards, and from merchants
who have not made local deposits before,

Mr. LAWBE.VCE. In the first section of the amendment I find these
words : " The bonds deposited with the Treasurer of the United Stales to
secure the additional circulating notes herein authorized sliall be of any
description of bonds of the United States bearing interest in coin." Would
it not 1« better, in proposing to organize new banks, to require them to
deposit such bonds as may hereafter be authorized, such txinds as may
be provided for in a funding bill at this session ?

My colleague will recollect that as this bill was first intro-
duced it provided four and a half per cent bonds, and required
the new banks to secure their circulation by depositing those
bonds ; but in view of the fact that the Committee of Ways and
Means had lately introduced a funding bill, we did not consider
it necessary to retain that provision here. When the funding
bill comes up, the whole question will be open for discussion.
We provide here for any bonds bearing interest in gold now in
existence, or which may hereafter be authorized. It would be
unjust to the new banks not to put them upon the same ground
and grant them the same privileges as the old banks. It would
be a class of vassal banks, with unequal privileges. I am sure
such an injustice would create ill-feeling between the different
sections of the country.

Mb. Hooper. I understood the gentleman to say that twenty per
cent of the amount deposited in these t)anks would have to be reserved
in greenbacks, and therefore this would in effect be so much contrac-
tion ; and yet he states that probably all of these new banks would be

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 575

located in the rural districts. The banks in the country are required to
reserve only fifteen per cent ; and of that amount three fifths may consist
of balances due from other banks.

The gentleman will remember that not all of these banks will
be located in the country, though a great majority will be. Of
course the cities of the West and South will receive a large share
of this increase of circulation. And in banks in all the redemp-
tion cities the reserves must be twenty-five per cent. Twenty
per cent on the whole is a fair average.

Mr. Hooper. I am under the impression that the required reserve in
these banks would not exceed ten per cent in greenbacks.

I think I have understated the total amount of deposits. I
think they would amount to more than $100,000,000, and that
would probably counterbalance the statement of the gentle-
man.

The third section of the substitute provides that, after the
$95,000,000 shall have been issued, if there be still a further
demand for national bank circulation in States now having a
deficiency, there may be withdrawn an amount not exceeding
$25,000,000 from States in the East having an excess of circula-
tion ; that amount to be withdrawn from two classes of banks.
First, from those having an outstanding circulation of over
$1,000,000 each, the excess over $1,000,000 is to be withdrawn.
That would take about $9,750,000 from banks in Boston, New
York, and Baltimore. The balance of the $25,000,000 will
be withdrawn from banks having a circulation of more than
$300,000 each, in States having an excess of circulation. That
will be taken from eighty-four banks situated in Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and Rhode Island. If, after the $95,000,000 has
been distributed, there shall be a call for more bank circulation
in States now having less than their proper proportion, then
$25,000,000 will be withdrawn from two classes of banks in
the manner that I have suggested.

The fourth section of the bill provides that any bank in a
State now having an excess of circulation may remove, with all its
rights, privileges, and obligations unimpaired, into a State where
there is a deficiency. This section is precisely as it passed the
Senate. It would be compelled to locate with all the condi-
tions and under all the guards and obligations that surround
other national banks. We are frequently providing by special

S76 CUHRBNCY AND THE BANKS.

act for the removal of some bank to another location. This
section permits a class of banks, under peculiar circumstances
and within limited restrictions, to change their location.

Mr. Benton. By the fourth section of the Senate bill free banking
is provided upon condition of depositing national bonds, and redeeming
tiieir circulation in gold. Is there anything in the substitute correspond-
ing to that provision? I am in favor of it.

In consequence of objections urged in the House, and not
because the committee were willing to leave those provisions
out, they have been omitted from the bill. I am myself in favor
of free banking on a gold basis; and in the report of a com-
mittee of conference between the two houses we may have an
opportunity to test the sense of the House on that point.

I have now stated in brief the provisions of the substitute
reported by the committee, and the amendment oifered by the
gentleman from Illinois.^

I wish next to call the attention of the House for a moment
to three amendments which are pending as additional sections.
If the substitute of the committee, with or without the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Illinois, shall prevail, the three
amendments ofTered as additional sections will come up for
action. The first, which is proposed by the gentleman from
Iowa,' provides that no bank shall pay interest on deposits made
by another bank. I will not stop to argue this matter ; but it
will be remembered that the Secretary of the Treasury, in his
annual report,* calls attention to the fact that the banks of New
York are now receiving interest on the deposits of other national
banks, and recommends that the practice be forbidden. The
Western banks send their surplus deposits to New York, where
they receive interest upon them ; and thus the country is drained

' Mr. Jutltl. * Mr. Allison.

' The New York banks were compelled to loan " on call " those deposits on ntiicb
thejpaid interest. The Comptroller of the Currency said; " If, then, New York
banks pay interest on these deposits, they must, oE course, use them, and, as the^
are payable on demand, they piust be loaned on call. Call loans, as a rule, art
made to brokers and operators in stocks and gold. Men engaged in trade cannot
ordinarily afford to borrow money which they may be called upon to refund at an

hour's notice Call loans are a necessity when interest is paid on depositi.

Competition for the accounts of country banks has led to the payment o( interest
.... The fact that the reserves of the country are hawked on the street and ate
tendered and used for speculation is sufficient ground for interference of law." —
MetK^^ and Documents, {Washington, 1B70,) p. 77.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. S77

of currency much more than it would be if such interest were
not allowed. Without discussing the question, I simply call
attention to the purpose to be accomplished by the amendment
of the gentleman from Iowa.

The next amendment is that offered by my colleague on the
committee.^ It is, that when the banks receive the gold on their
coupons from the bonds now deposited in the Treasury to secure
their circulation, the gold or gold certificates thus accruing shall
be placed in the vaults of the banks as a part of their reserve.
Tliis would have the effect of strengthening the banks prepara-
tory to resumption, and also of liberating greenbacks, and to
that extent would increase the active circulation of the country.
It may be said, on the other hand, that to lock up this large
amount of gold would tend to increase the premium. But it
seems to me that the provision is a wise one, as tending to
strengthen the banks and prepare them to redeem their notes
in gold.

The proposition next submitted is the amendment of my
colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Indiana,^ to
issue $44,000,000 of greenbacks to replace the three per cent
certificates. I hope we shall not authorize a further inflation
by the issue of $44,000,000 additional greenbacks. This propo-
sition in its naked form we have voted down this morning by a
decided majority, and I hope it will be voted down again.

I now call attention to the general course of debate on this
bill, and to some of the doctrines announced.

Our Democratic friends do not seem to be ready to lead the
country into green pastures and beside the still waters of financial
peace. The distinguished gentleman from New York, my col-
league on the Committee on Banking and Currency,^ said : —

" It is my deliberate judgment, after much study, that all your meas-
ures, even your most matured, are mere makeshifts, cowardly, timid,
halting devices to avoid the one * heroic remedy,* which this Congress
has not had the skill or courage to apply, to wit, resume specie pay-
ments. You owe it to the people to give them back their gold and
silver."

This bold declaration roused the enthusiasm of some of his
Jacksonian and " Old Bullion " colleagues ; and a little scene,
touching and dramatic, took place in the neighborhood of the
orator. I read again from the record : —

1 Mr. Burchard. * Mr. Coborn. » Mr. Cox.

VOL. I. 37

578 CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

** Mr. Cox. Ah ! I see that PennsyWania has its ear open. [Judge
Woodward bowed to the speaker; and Mr. Getz of Pennsyhania ap-
proached the seat of Mr. Cox, presenting him two gold twenty-doUar
pieces.]

'' Mr. Getz. Here is the Democratic conency, which Pennsylvania
loves and longs after.

'' Mr. Cox. I hear its chink. I see its beauty. I know it is pre-
cious. It reminds me of the better day of the republic, when the
people knew what they had to ' deal with.' " ^

But this sweet vision of peace and unity vanished when my
Democratic colleague from the Mount Vernon district' took the
floor. Turning to his specie-paying friend from New York, he
' said, scornfully, ^' Sir, this talk of returning to a specie basis
while this debt hangs over us is a mere cheat, set afloat for the
express purpose of deceiving the people." Rising in his noble
rage above party» he denounced not only Congress, but the late
Democratic Administration, for having reduced the currency in
1866 and onward. He said: '' And all this, sir, has been done
in the interest of banker and bondholder, and to the injury of
the people. Why? Because scarcity of currency makes high
interest and high rents, with low wages for the workman and
low prices for the farmer."

Let us all stand rebuked for not having discovered before this
how cruelly the people were wronged in having the volume of
their paper money reduced in 1866, when its whole amount was
only $900,ooo,ocx) !

But my colleague was not content with rebuking evil. He
determined to show himself the chief champion of the people,
by relieving them of one of their most troublesome necessities,
that of paying taxes. He therefore introduced a bill, which the
House voted on yesterday, and with singular blindness voted
down by a vote of about five to one. His bill recites in its
second section the various philanthropic objects which its author
had in view, among which is ** to provide the people the means
of paying their taxes." Generous man ! How they will rise
up and bless him when they learn of his noble bequest ! His
method of doing this is to set the printing-presses of the Treas-
ury agoing, and print off $500,000,000 of greenbacks. Most
people are so simple as to suppose that, if the Treasury should
issue greenback notes, the Secretary would pay them out to

1 Congressional Globe, June 7, 1870^ Appendix, p. 439. * Mr. Morgan.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. $79

the creditors of the government ; but it would seem, from the
second section, that the $500,000,000 to be manufactured by
my colleague will be distributed to those who owe debts to the
government in the form of taxes. I suggest whether it would
not be better to cancel the taxes directly, and thus save the
expense of printing and presenting greenbacks to the people,
and giving them the trouble to pay the gift back into the
Treasury.

He proposes to abolish the national banks, and declares that
this feature of his bill alone will save over $20,000,000 now
annually paid as interest on the bonds deposited by the banks
as security for their circulation. I am puzzled to know how
my colleague makes this out, and still more puzzled to know
how the abolition of the banks will abolish the bonds held for
their circulation. Having begun this work of abolishing, why
does he not take a step further, and abolish all the bonds,
whether held by the banks or by citizens? His philanthropy
ought to take a wider scope and accomplish this full measure
of good for the people, and not stint his charity.

The courage and gallantry of my colleague is most touching.
He revives the exploded theory of his distinguished friend,
Mr. Pendleton ; and in his hands it blossoms again into full life
and vigor. I had supposed that the Pendletonian theory of
finance had perished with the defeat of its author in the New
York Convention of 1868. If not, the late decision of the
Supreme Court must have finished it. The Democratic State
Convention that recently met at Columbus, Ohio, lacked either
the will or the courage to revive or indorse that theory. The
arguments of my colleague and of the gentleman from Indiana ^
come up to us like voices from the tomb. These men still
follow their old leader, and are the champions of the same
greenbacks which Mr. Pendleton denounced in this chamber in
the most unmeasured terms.^

It is manifest to my mind, that out of this remarkable pressure
for more paper money have arisen nearly all the crude and
conflicting opinions on financial questions with which Congress
and the country have been afflicted during the last five years.

It is an incontestable fact, which all advocates of inflation are
compelled to meet, that we now have a paper currency one
hundred and fifty per cent greater in volume than the country

1 Mr. Holman. * See Speech on " The Currency," anle p. 308.

58o CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

had in i860, a year of general prosperity, when free banking
prevailed in many States, and the banks were issuing all the
notes they could push into circulation. I have observed that,
when men have determined on a given course of conduct, the
reasons alleged therefor are frequeatly afterthoughts, and formed
no part of their original ground of action. For example, what
man, whose course of action was not already determined, would
defend a further issue of inconvertible paper money by such a
doctrine as this avowed by the gentleman fro m^ Indiana.^ He
says : —

"The gentleman who draws a distinction between money and the
greenback as a promise to pay, merely plays upon words. The stamp of
current value on gold or silver is regulated by law, its value is fixed by law ;
and, unless restrained by the Constitution, the law-making power of this
country can fix that monetary value, the quality of legal tender, as well
upon paper as upon gold and silver. In the one instance as well as in the
other, the representative value is fixed by law, and this is clearly true while
gold and silver are the common representatives of value throughout the
world ; but as lawful money in the United States, gold and silver and the
United States note alike depend on the law of the land for their value." *

If this doctrine be true, there can be no such thing as an
absurdity. If this be true, then an ounce of silver coined into
fifty pieces will have five times the value of an ounce coined
into ten pieces. A piece of gold stamped into the shape of
a half-eagle may be worth twice as much as the same piece
stamped into the shape of a spoon. My friend is so dazzled
with the ** guinea stamp " that he forgets that the gold is the
money *' for a* that."

Could anything but a predetermined purpose to defend, main-
tain, and increase our irredeemable paper money, lead so able
and distinguished a statesman as the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania^ to say, as he did the other day, concerning the greenback
currency: *' Beyond the sea, in foreign lands, it fortunately is
not money ; but, sir, when have we had such a long and un-
broken career of prosperity in business as since we adopted this
non-exportable currency?"

It is reported of an Englishman who was wrecked on a
strange shore, that, wandering along the coast, he came to a
gallows with a victim hanging upon it, and that he fell on his

> Mr. Holman. ' Congressional Globe, June, 8, 1870, p. 4237.

« Mr. Kelley.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 581

knees and thanked God that he at last beheld a sign of civiliza-
tion. But this is the first time I ever heard a financial phi-
losopher express his gratitude that we have a currency of such
bad repute that other nations will not receive it ; he is thankful
that it is not exportable. We have a great many commodities
in such a condition that they are not exportable. Mouldy flour,
rusty wheat, rancid butter, damaged cotton, addled eggs, and
spoiled goods generally are not exportable. But it never oc-
curred to me to be thankful for this putrescence. It is related in
a quaint German book of humor that the inhabitants of Schil-
deberg, finding that other towns, with more public spirit than
their own, had erected gibbets within their precincts, resolved
that the town of Schildeberg should also have a gallows ; and
one patriotic member of the. town council offered a resolution
that the benefits of this gallows should be reserved exclusively
for the inhabitants of Schildeberg. The gentleman from Penn-
sylvania would reserve for our exclusive benefit all the bless-
ings of a fluctuating, uncertain, and dishonored paper currency.
In his view, this irredeemable, non-exportable currency is so full
of virtue, that for the want of it California is falling into decay.
That misguided State has seen fit to cling to the money that all
nations receive, and ruin impends over her golden shores. I
doubt if the business men of California will ask my friend to
prescribe for their financial maladies.

Quite in keeping with the gentleman's other opinions on this
subject is the following. He says, " The volume of currency
does not, as has often been asserted, regulate the price of com-
modities.'* According to this, we have not only a non-export-
able currency, but one regulated by some trick of magic, so as
to defy the universal laws of value, of supply and demand, and
such that neither the increase nor decrease of its volume can
affect the price of commodities. Argument on such a doctrine
is useless.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to see that it is the manifest opinion of
this House that there shall be an increase in the volume of our
paper currency. As to the amount, there are differences of
opinion. The figures range all the way from the $50,0CX),0CX)
asked for in the pending amendment of my colleague on the
committee,^ to the boundless inflation asked for by the gentle-
man from Illinois,^ who wishes to authorize the Secretary of the

1 Mr. Judd. • Mr. Ingersoll.

■-r-'^^'^^^T^I^f^^f-^^^^

SBa CURRENCY AND TBE BANKS.

Treasury to issue what his inventive genius calls " coined paper
dollars," whatever that may mean. My colleague from Ohio'
has been kind enough to intimate to the country what the fea-
tures of his inflation policy wQl be. He says : —

" I believe we ought to have more currency, either by new banks or
bonds at a reduced rate of interest, or by an bsue of Sgo,ooo,ooo of
greenbacks, and then, when the outstanding five-twenty bonds should
be funded at a lower rate of interest, L would annually increase the
tiisue of currency, not by any unreasonable inflation, but so that the
ciirrency should only keep pace with the incjease of population and
business, without any inflation, and then gradually come to the resump-
tion of specie payments." ^

This offers a pleasant prospect to the American people. He
would have us issue $50,000,000 now, and afterward make a
reasonable increase annually to keep pace with the increase
of population, and then gradually come to specie payments!
How docs my colleague hope to accomplish this? On the
doctrine that " what goes up must come down," he must see
tliat tliere will come an end to this process of inflation, and
that his resumption will consist in coming down from high prices
and fluctuating values to the solid basis of real value, to the
money of the world. He tells us, in conclusion, what would be
the outcome of his plan if continued to the end of the present
century. He says : —

" In thirty years from this time otir population will reach over a hun-
dred millions, and, by the means I have suggested, at the dose of this
century the whole bonded indebtedness of the country may be taken up
and exist only in the form of greenback currency receivable in payment
of all pubhc dues.

" No dollar of tax need be levied on the people to pay the principal
of the debt in the mean time, but it ought to be funded at a lower rate
of interest as speedily as may be found practicable. When the business
and population of the country will require the whole debt to exist in the
form of currency, if ' a national debt ' shall not be ' a national Uessiag,'
it will be an evil out of which some good at least may come." '

I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether this Congress will thus, by a new
issue of paper money poured out upon the country, check the
current that for several months has been setting so strongly
towards specie payments, — check the downward tendency of

• Mr. Lawrence.

1 Congreulonal Globe, June 8, 1870^ p. 4234. ■ Ibid, p. 4134.

I

CURRENCY AND, THE BANKS. 583

gold, — check the gradual subsidence to old prices and solid
values, and thus plunge the country back again into the uncer-
tainty and confusion that are inseparable from a redundant and
inconvertible paper currency? This House may well heed the
words uttered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania ^ when he
said : —

" It is shown, to my mind, that we now have a sufficient volume of
circulation for all business purposes. I fear, for our own prosperity, too
much. We certainly have all that is necessary. Whenever in our past
history we have approached near our present amount, disaster and bank-
ruptcy have followed in the wake. This state of things occurred, as I
have shown, in the years 1837-38 and 1857-58." *

I counsel no act that will depreciate the currency of the
country. If this bill, as reported from the committee, be passed,
it will not cause inflation, but it will relieve the West and South,
and it will remove from the national banks one of their most
odious features, the present distribution of their capital and
circulation. The West and South are in a condition that can-
not and will not be ignored. They must have relief. They
must have increased facilities for credit. We cannot give them
relief by the passage of a bill which will redistribute the circu-
lation by taking it from the East, and giving it to the West and
South, without a serious shock to business. This House cannot,
with safety or honor, authorize an increase of the greenback
currency. The only safe and practical mode of relief is to in-
crease the national bank circulation. By doing this, and get-
ting rid of the three per cents, as this bill provides, we shall
afford the needed relief.

^ Air. RandaU. ' Congressional Globe, Jane 8, 1870^ p. 4225.

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Junk 29, 187a

On June 15, the committee's substitute for the Senate bill passed the
House.^ The Senate refused to concur in the substitute, and the subject
went to a committee of conference. In submitting the conference
report, June 28, Mr. Garfield made a lengthy statement of the questions
at issue between the two houses, and of the compromise agreed upon.
The next day he made his third speech upon the measure, now in advo-
cacy of the conference committee's report. This report failed ; but a
second one succeeded, and the President's signature made the measure
a law, July 12. The first section of this act authorized the issuance
of 154,000,000 of national bank notes in addition to the 1 300,000,000
already authorized, said amount «to be furnished to banking associations
organized, or to be organized, in those States and Territories having less
than their proportion of the bank-note circulation under the old appor-
tionment. Tlie second section directed the Secretary of the Treasury,
at the close of each month, to redeem and cancel an amount of three
per cent temporary bond certificates, issued under the laws of 1867 ^.nd
1868, not less than the amount of bank notes so issued during the mondi.
Sections 3, 4, and 5 provided for the organization of gold banks, subject
to the general provisions of the National Banking Acts, but redeeming
their circulation in gold instead of in lawful money. Sections 6 and 7
authorized a new distribution of national bank circulation, based upon
the census of 1870, to the extent of withdrawing $25,000,000 of circula-
tion from the States and Territories having more than their proportion,
and giving it to those having less.

This act came to hold an important place in subsequent financial
discussion and legislation. Practically, it neither expanded nor con-
tracted the currency. But it gave those sections of the country that were
most clamorous for " more money," the West and South particularly, an
opportunity to add materially to their banking and currency facilities.
Still the people of these sections did not come forward to claim the prof-
fered advantages. New banks were not promptly organized, the bank-

* See Introductions to Speeches of June 7 and June 15,

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 585

note circulation was not rapidly increased, and the national banks contin-
ued preponderatingly in the East. All this confirmed what Mr. Garfield
had long told the clamorers for more money, — " The trouble is, not that
you need more money, but more capital." For years the most telling
reply that could be made to Western inflationists was, Why did you not
more promply claim the banking facilities held out to you in the act of
July 12, 1870? There was no answer; the law was a reductio ad absur-
dutn of the inflation cry. Besides, it took away firom the banks their most
inequitable legal feature, — the inequality of the distribution of capital.

MR. SPEAKER, — I ask the indulgence of the House
while I review some of the criticisms made on this con-
ference report. I desire to call attention first to the remarks of
several gentlemen concerning the conferees themselves, and par-
ticularly in reference to myself. The criticisms of the gentleman
from Illinois^ and of the gentleman from Indiana^ seem to carry
the implication that I am an improper person to be put on a
conference committee on the subject of currency, because I dif-
fer from the House in regard to an increase of the currency. If
the criticism be just, then the Speaker should not appoint a
member upon a conference committee who holds any other
opinion than that held by the House. I have taken it for
granted that a respectable minority of the House were to be
represented upon a conference committee, and this is the first
time I have ever heard it intimated that such an appointment
is improper. The gentleman from Illinois has attempted to
ridicule the idea that a member is capable of representing the
wishes of the House where they are not exactly his own. Is
the gentleman a lawyer, and has he never undertaken to repre-
sent the views and interests of a client whom he did pot in all
respects indorse? When he has undertaken to defend a crimi-
nal, has he always taken upon himself all the responsibility for
the crime? Has he never represented the views of others with-
out himself absorbing and impersonating all their beliefs and
aspirations? If he has done such a thing as that, I think he
will see sufficient reason why it may be proper that a man
should be on a conference committee who does not entirely
concur with all the sentiments of the body that he represents.
I do not choose to consider any of these criticisms as personal
to myself; I presume they were not so intended; I will not

» Mr. Judd. « Mr. Coburn.

s'jisfij^

586 CURRMNCY AifD THE BAlfKS.

think so meanly of any of these gentlemen as t» suppose tbis^.
are influenced by mere personal jealousy in so small a Eaattcr;J.
iqKak'Va^'Of the principle involved in their ctitici8n&

And now what assBift is «Mde chi the report itself? Mr. -
Speaker, thovseems to be one point dxMrt «du^ several gen* ,
demen have great difficulty, and tiiat is die aUegation that
this report authorizes a contraction of the currency. X odl
the attention of the House to the remaricaUe spectacle pre-:-
sented by two able and worthy gentlemen, representatives
from Pennsylvania,^ who now sit here beude me, both of
them actually engaged in national banking, and therefore
practically understanding tlie system. One of tliem made a
speech within the last hour opposing the report, because it
authorizes contraction; and the other, ten minutes ago, in a
speech of gfreat clearness and force, opposed it because it Is ai
measure of great inflation. These two gentlemen from the same ■
State, gentlemen of equal respectability and ability, have de>
monstnded clearly to their own minds, one that the bill does
not permit inflation, the other that it does not permit contrac-
tion. It is perhaps as high a compliment as can be paid the
bill, that it is clearly proved by one of these gentlemen that it
is not contraction, and clearly proved by the other that it is not
inflation. And that is precisely the conclusion which the con-
ferees of the two Houses were compelled to reach, considering
the conflict of opinion of the two bodies that they represented.

Now my distinguished colleague^ on the Committee on Bank-
ing and Currency says that the $95,ocx),ooo bill which passed
the House was not only not expansive, but if there had been an
issue of $44,000,000 of greenbacks in addition to the $95,000,000
bill, as he wanted, even then it would have been an inflation of
only $i8iooo,ooo. According. to that gendeman, the $95,000,000
bill was, therefore, a contraction to the extent of $22,000,000.

Mr. Coburh. The gentleman's arithmetic is not good. That was
not the basis of my calculation.

1 think I have stated correctly the case as it was put by the
gentleman from Indiana. But the gentleman from Illinois'
admits that the $95,000,000 bill, as it passed the House, was an
inflation to the extent of $31,000,000. So there is another cal-
culation for you ! The other gentleman from Illinois *• says no
■ Mr. IngersoU.
« Mr.Jndd. '

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 587

man can show that the contraction resulting from the conference
report is less than $18,000,000. To that challenge I respond.
If I can have the attention of the House for about three minutes,
I will try to state three propositions from which I think no mem-
ber here will dissent. Those who say that this bill is a contrac-
tion of the currency, neglect to notice or deny three things.

First, they neglect to notice the error in the statement that
the $45,000,000 of three per cents are all a fixed part of the
currency, and that to redeem them is actually to contract a
fixed and certain portion of the currency. That is the first
point. Now I wish to call the attention of the House to a fact
which I believe has been wholly overlooked in this debate.
What are the three per cents ? They are a loan of the gov-
ernment, payable on demand, and are being paid every day.
Refuse to pass this bill, and the three per cents will nevertheless
be redeemed. They are being redeemed every day. The offi-
cial statement of the debt in October, 1868, showed that there
was then outstanding $59,000,000 of the three per cents. Pass
on to the statement of the debt in January, 1869, and you find
the amount reduced to $52,000,000. Pass on to July, 1869,
and you find the amount reduced to $49,815,000. Take the
statement of April last, and you find that they amounted to little
more than $45,000,000. In the last twenty months, the three per
cents have been reduced by the redemption of over $14,000,000 ;
and the reduction is still going on. The men who hold them
can demand their redemption any day. It has been and is the
policy of the Secretary of the Treasury, at least so far as can
be judged from his acts, to redeem and cancel them, and he
needs no law to enable him to do so. Now the House can
reject this bill if it pleases, but the three per cents are going to
disappear any way, unless we pass, a law to forbid it, and I think
that is not likely to happen.

Mr. Coburn. I desire to ask the gentleman what probability he
thinks there is of a banker surrendering the three per cent certificates
held by him ?

In reply to my colleague's question, I point him to the fact
that $14,500,000 of three per cent certificates have been surren-
dered by bankers within the last twenty months, and that there
is constantly going on a redemption of them without reissue.
The government has a right to redeem them, and the people
have a right to present them for redemption at any hour. That

588 CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 1

is the fact. And yet all these wise financial gentlemen utterly I
ignore — perhaps I should say do not know — that fact whea J
they talk of the three per cents as if they were greenbacks, and J
a fixed portion of tlie currency. Now, 1 may be called a theo- 1
rist, but here are some facts for gentlemen to consider. \

Again, whenever there is a panic in the country the holders
of these three per cent certificates bring them into the Treas-
ury and get currency for them. Why? Because they cannot
be used as currency except as reserves by tlie banks. When '
the panic occurred last September, $7,000,000 of three pCf I
cent certificates leaped out of the banks, and were either ex- J
changed for currency or were used as collaterals to borrow]
money upon; and while thus used they formed no portion,]
whatever of the reserves of the banks, and therefore performed ,
no function of currency. There has been for the last eighteen
months, on an average, $3,000,000 of three per cent certificates
that have not been used as bank rcser\'es, and that therefore
have in no respect performed the functions of currency. And J
yet every gentleman who has argued that this bill is a measur<! J
of contraction has persistently, with ears stopped and with dust '
in the air around him, ignored the fact that $5,000,000 of these
three per cent certificates are not to-day, and nevpr have been
in any sense, a portion of the currency of the country.

My second point is, that thus far everybody who claims that
this bill is a measure of contraction has said or assumed that,
if the three per cents are retired, their entire volume will be
supplied by greenbacks, taken out of the active circulation of
the country and placed in the banks as reserves. Now this
I deny, with the most absolute assurance of the correctness of
my denial. WhyP The national banks now hold $55,000,000
more of reserves than they are required by law to hold. If you
take up the three per cent certificates, now a part of their
reserves, the result will be that the banks will hold less surplus
reserves. They will not reach out into the country and call in
$45,000,000 of active circulation to supply the place of these
three per cent certificates. They will simply reduce the vol-
ume of their surplus reserves; and to that extent the retiring
of the three per cent certificates will not afiect the active vol-
ume of the currency at all.

But assume, for the sake of argument, that every dollar of the
three per cents now used by the banks as reserves will be re-
placed by greenbacks Uken directly from the active circulation

I

1
s

\

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 589

of the country. Then the gross contraction will amount to
$42,000,000, and not one dollar more; because that is the
amount of the three per cents now used by the banks as a por-
tion of their reserves. You will then contract $42,000,000 and
issue $45,000,000.

We are. told that for the $45,000,000 to be issued there must
be twenty per cent, or $9,000,000, of greenbacks locked up as
reserves with which to redeem them. Granted ; but I reply that
all. the gentlemen ignore another fact which I propose to notice,
that in starting new banks with a circulation of $45,000,000, in
portions of the country which are now destitute of banking
facilities, we shall thereby largely increase the credit currency
of the country, to the full extent of the checks, drafts, &c. which
will be issued and passed from hand to hand by these new banks
in the settlement of debts. This incontestable fact these gentle-
men ignore ; not one of them even attempted to answer it. On
the contrary, the gentleman from Pennsylvania ^ has expressed
with great force his conviction that therein inflation is pro-
vided for by this bill.

Now, there is another fact to which I wish to call attention,
the last of these ignored facts that I propose to notice. All the
gentlemen who have figured out a contraction in this bill have
entirely ignored the fact that every dollar of circulation that will
be issued under the provision for free banking upon a gold basis
will be an absolute addition to the present volume of the cur-
rency. They fix their eyes on what they call the contractive
features, and utterly ignore the fact to which I have just alluded.
No gentleman, I think, will venture to deny what all the Repre-
sentatives of the State of California, so far as I know, assert,
that if this bill is passed gold banks will immediately be organ-
ized on the Pacific coast. The Assistant Comptroller of the
Currency, in a statement which I received from him this morn-
ing, says that if this bill be passed California will probably not
take her share of the $45,000,000; that she will, instead, estab-
lish banks on a gold basis. This is what will be done generally
on the Pacific coast. New Orleans also will start gold banks ;
so, I have no doubt, will Charleston.

Now I have here a table showing where the $45,000,000
issued under the first section of this bill will go. When gen-
tlemen say there will be no redistribution under this bill, I
call their attention to this ^ble. The gentleman from Indiana^

* Mr. Townsend. * Mi, CoYixatL.

SQO CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

says that he wants a general redistribution, one that shall reach
the whole body of our banking circulation, — which shall do
full justice between the East and the West, the North and
the South. I will remind him that last winter he tried to
get through this House a bill for redistribution, general and
sweeping in its character; but it was impossible to pass it. I
remind him of the further fact, and it is an important one, that
should he atteippt to redistribute the whole body of our banking
currency, taking, for example, $36,cxx5.ooo from Massachusetts,
$12,000,000 from Rhode Island, as much more from Connecti-
cut, and $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 from the city of New York,
it is alleged there would follow a severe shock to the business
community. An.iiious to avoid such a shock, the conferees on
the part of the Senate and the House thought that there could
safely be issued $45,000,000 in lieu of the three per cent certifi-
cates, which are to be taken up at any rate. In order that the
withdrawal of these three per cent certificates may not operate
as a contraction of the currency, wc have thought best to pro-
vide for putting into circulation in their place $45,000,000 of
bank notes, to be distributed to the South and West. But as
that amount will not give those sections of the country their
proper proportion, it b proposed that $25,000,000 in addition
shall be taken, as it may be required, not violently, but after
due notice, from the States having an excess, and shall be dis-
tributed to them, I ask the Clerk to read the table to which
I have referred, showing what will be the distribution of the
$45,000,000 provided for in the first section of the bill.

The Clerk read the following table, showing the States which will be
entitled to the ^5,000,000, under the proposed legislation, together with

the amount to be issued to each State : —

Sui« uul Tcnilorio. AmoBiiti.

Geoi^a #3.9<»,63S

North Carolina 3,415,696

Soulh Carolina 3,514,210

Alabama 3,401,185

Oregon , 134,401

Texas . , 1,693,581

Arkansas 1,211,994

Utah ^,6,3

California 1 ,431, 130

Florida 4SS'39'

Dakota lz36S

New Meiico ivfix]

Waatiinf^on Territory . . . 39,319

Total %^^yoafloa

Suit! and Toritorit*. AinounU,

Virginia $4.095<^3

West Virginia 381,494

Illinois 899,689

Michigan 655,680

Wisconsin I.76S039

lo" 5^7^32

Kaiuas 145,601

Missouri 3,500.469

Kentucky 3,876,321

Tennessee 3,609,983

Iiouisiana 4,531,223

Mississippi 2.483.574

Nebrailca 5,480

CURRENCY AND THE BANKS. 591

Mr. Speaker, it will be observed there is $45,000,000 to be
divided among twenty-six States, in many of which there is not
a single national bank, and in others only one or two, while the
Southern States, which have been restored to the Union since
the war, have not one dollar of banking circulation where they
had ten before the war. If we hope to thrive by perpetuating
the great wrong done to the South and many portions of the
West by refusing this distribution, gentlemen must take the
responsibility. I have done what I could to remedy the evil.

Gentlemen who have spoken look upon this relief as mean
and insignificant. Do they suppose that more than $45,000,000
can be taken by these States before next winter? If we were
to vote $100,000,000 to be distributed in these States, it is not
possible that they can take up more than $45,000,000 before we
will be back here again in session. Here is a measure of great
and immediate relief to the South and West; yet there are
gentlemen here from the West who say that it is so small, so
mean, that they do not deign to accept it. It is easy for the
Senate, easy for this House, to kill this bill ; but I point you to
the consequences. For my own part, I am quite willing to let
these gentlemen fight it out among themselves. If they finally
reject this bill, they will probably get nothing. Because I desire
the permanence of our banking institutions, because I desire the
injustice of the present distribution to be removed, I desire the
passage of this bill. I cannot understand why the gentlemen
from the West who are interested in it should vote against it.
The State of Ohio will not get one dollar under its provis-
ions, while the State of Illinois will get nearly $1,000,000 out
of the $45,000,000. I dare not on my responsibility here deny
to the South and the West the measurable relief which this bill
affords.

Mr. Speaker, there has been an opposition to this bill from
the start on the part of the bankers of New York City ; naturally
enough, they do not want any reduction of their circulation.
Most of the $55,000,000 of bank reserves is held in the banks
of that city. Take away the three per cents, and this New
York surplus will be reduced, and bankers will lose the interest
on their reserves. I am not surprised that gentlemen from that
city should oppose this report, but I am very much surprised
that it should be opposed by members representing the West.
It has been opposed very persistently by the gentleman from

592 CURRENCY AND THE BANKS.

New York ; ' but I have no doubt he is in perfect accord with
the opinions of his constituents, I am surprised when gentle-
men from the West assail this proposition, which gives them
$45,000,000 of circulation, as a mean thing that ought not to
be tolerated by the House.

[Here ensued a colloquy between Mr. Butler and Mr. Garfield ; the
latter proceeded.]

I do not expect any man who holds that we may stamp paper
and call it money, and it will be money, — who talks of gold and
silver money as relics of barbarism, — I do not expect any such
financial genius to vote for this bill or any other that Congress
■ will adopt. But the gentleman from Massachusetts^ has a fol-
lower in his new doctrines. The gentleman from Illinois^ has
invented a novelty in the literature of finance, if not in currency,
and he also desires that this bill shall not pass. He wants
" coined paper dollars." Those are his words. '" Coined paper
dollars ! " Put it down in the dictionary. We are now to have
a mint striking off a new coin made of paper! The gentleman
says he is in favor of a cheap kind of money, and in his speech
made some three weeks ago, and printed in the Globe yesterday,
he tells us what he means by cheap money. He says some
kinds of money are dear, and some cheap, and the cheap money
which he loves is that on which the interest is low. That is his
supreme test. Any kind of money on which interest is low is
cheap! Suppose you make your money of cabbage leaves.
At the end of the year, for every one hundred cabbage leaves
you had borrowed, you would pay back three cabbage leaves as
interest. That would be low enough interest, and, according to
the gentleman, that would be cheap money.

' Mr. Cox. ' Mr. Botlet. ' Mr. tngersolL

JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS.

ADDRESS DELIVERED AT JEFFERSON, OHIO, JULY 25. 1870, AT
THE DEDICATION OF THE GIDDINGS MONUMENT.

FELLOW-CITIZENS, — We have met to dedicate a monu-
ment to the memory of Joshua R. Giddings. The task
you have assigned to me might be more fittingly performed by
some one who was more fully his contemporary, and a more
immediate sharer of his labors. But you have asked me to
address you, and I thank you for being permitted to join in the
ceremonies, and to call to your affectionate remembrance the
man who was so long your leader, neighbor, and friend.

Beautiful and appropriate as is the monument you dedicate,
its chief importance is what it signifies, rather than what it is.
The vast pyramids of Egypt remain as material wonders, but
their significance is lost. They teach no such impressive lesson
as the simple gray slab which travellers look at through the
chinks of the brick wall that surrounds a graveyard in Phila-
delphia. That slab means all that we love and reverence in
Benjamin Franklin. Monuments may be builded to express
the affection or pride of friends, or to display their wealth,
but they are only valuable for the characters which they per-
petuate.

This monument is a beautiful tribute of filial affection. Its
plain and massive granite fitly represents simplicity, strength,
and repose. The perfect medallion profile of bronze exhibits
not only the consummate skill of the artist, but the affectionate
reverence which inspired his work. But beyond all this are
the more important questions, What does it signify? What
qualities of mind and heart does it aid in perpetuating? What
will be its meaning to those who live outside the immediate
circle of Mr. Giddings's family and friends? I shall try to find
an answer.

VOL. I. #

■■'ffP^^BPBB^Bll

594 yOSHUA S. GWBINGS.

There are three things that should be considered in the tUe
of a man. First, What was he, and what were the elements and
forces within himP Second, What were the elements and ftsve*
of life and society around him? Third. What career resulted
from the mutual play of these two groups of forces? How did
he handle the world, and how did t!ic world handle him? Did
he drift, unresisting, on the currents of life, or did he lead iho
thoughts of men to higher and nobler purposes?

The origin and early life of Joshua Reed Giddings may be
briefly told. He was bom in Athens, Hradford County, Penn-
sylvania, October 6th, 1795. Hia ancestors emigrated from
England to this country in 1650. His great-grandfather left
Connecticut for Pennsylvania in 1725, and in iSofi, when Joshua
was ten years old, his father emigrated to the wilderness of
Ashtabula County, Ohio, taking his son with him, who continued
to reside'there during the whole of his eventful life. Mr. Gid-
dings never had tiie advantage of a collegiate, nor even of an
academical education, and never attended any other school
than that kept in the' log schoolhcuse of his district, and this
only for a portion of the winter months. His father had fought
in the battles of the Revolution, and he heard of the stirring
times of '"jd at his father's fireside.

In 1812, young Giddings took part in the war with Great
Britain. He enlisted for active service when less than seven-
teen years of age, and was engaged in one or more battles with
the enemy. He was in the expedition to Sandusky Bay, where,
in two battles in one day, the force lost one fifth of its number
in killed and wounded. On his return from the war he ac-
cepted an invitation to teach a district school in the neighbor-
hood, and succeeded beyond his expectations. Hungering for
more knowledge, he placed himself for a time under the tuition
of a neighboring clergyman. In 1817 he commenced the study
of the law with Hon. Elisha Whittlesey, of Canfield, Ohio, and
was admitted to the bar in 1820. In 1826 he was chosen a Rep-
resentative to the State Legislature; he declined a re-election,
and devoted himself to his profession until 1838, when he was
elected to Congress as the successor of Mr. Whittlesey, where
he was continued to the end of the Thirty-fifUi Congress, in
1858.

As the importance of Mr. Giddings's public career rests al-
most exclusively upon its relations to the institution of slaveiy.

JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS. 595

it IS important to find out when and how his attention was first
directed to that subject. It appears that in the year 1835
Theodore Weld visited Northern Ohio, and delivered in Jeffer-
son a series of lectures on slavery. At the conclusion of his
lectures he organized an antislavery society, consisting of four
men, one of whom was Mr. Giddings. No other plan of action
was proposed than to secure an expression of sentiment on the
general question, and an agreement to open the general dis-
cussion among the people. It is important to understand the
state of political opinion in regard to slavery at that time, and
for that purpose I ask your attention to a brief survey of its
previous history.

The founders of the republic believed they had so adjusted
its principles that slavery would slowly but surely become ex-
tinct under the joint operation of constitutional and popular
forces. They provided in the Constitution for the abolition of
the foreign slave-trade after the year 1808, and in the Ordinance
of 1787 they prohibited the spread of slavery into any terri-
tory of the United States where it did not exist. Thus pre-
venting its numerical increase from abroad and its territorial
increase at home, and leaving in the national Constitution no
recognition of its right to exist except by the authority of State
laws, they had strong ground for the belief that the genial in-
fluences of religion and civil liberty would gradually extermi-
nate a system which the cupidity of England had entailed upon
them, and which at that time found few apologists and still
fewer defenders.

The reasoning was sound, and during the first fifteen years of
the Constitution there were many indications of the decline of
slavery and of the growth of freedom. But a great reaction in
favor of slavery set in, in consequence of two events, neither
of which the fathers could have foreseen. One was the invention
of the cotton-gin by Eli Whitney, in 1793; the other, the pur-
chase of Louisiana from the French, in 1803. The first made
cotton a crowned king among the staple products of the United
States. The whole cotton crop of 1 790 was less than the product
of a single plantation in i860. The plant was almost valueless
because of the enormous labor required to separate the seed
from the fibre, — one pound of fibre being the average result of
a day's work. So completely did Whitney's invention revolu-
tionize the industry of the South that an able writer declares,

'^

gg6 yOSHUA R. GIDDTNGS.

"To say that this invention was worth one thousand millions of
dollars to the Slave Slates, is to place a very moderate estimate
on its value." The acquisition of the Territory of Louisiana
gave the planters the best of all their cotton lands, and opened
to them an industrial future, brilliant beyond comparison. To
convert this new territory into cotton-fields, and to control the
cotton markets of the world, became the passion of Southern
planters. The purchase of slaves from the worn-out tobacco
fields of Virginia and the Carolinas, and the organization of the
coastwise and interstate slave trade, became leading features
of the apostasy from freedom and the renewal of the spirit of
slavery. It was not merely a perverse desire to oppress and
enslave, but the love of money, — that cupidity which seeks to
grasp great fortunes with few toils, — which inaugurated thia
new crusade for slavery.

Of all the hostile forces which truth. Justice, and humanity meet
in the struggle of life, none are so insidious, none so subtle, none
so formidable, as the inordinate love of gain. This was the in-
spiring genius of slavery. I will not follow the stealthy steps by
which slavery made its way. year after year, unchallenged and
unobserved. Appealing to the avarice of human nature, it per-
verted the intellects and drugged the consciences of men. It
guided the ambition of politicians, perverted the wisdom of
statesmen, seized all the places of power and influence in the
national government, and finally entered the sanctuaries of
religion, and converted the great mass of American churches
into bulwarks for the defence of human bondage. It required
nearly half a century to effect this horrible transformation, and
it was done so silently, so insidiously, that it wellnigh escaped
the notice of mankind.

It is a significant fact, which should not be forgotten, that
when the awakening began, it did not begin in the high places
of political or ecclesiastical power. It sprang up among the
common people who lived remote from the centres of power
and influence, — people who ate their bread in the sweat of their
faces, and who, adopting the religious and political faith of
their fathers, discovered and proclaimed the great apostasy
of the slave power. This truth is exemplified in the career of
Abraham Lincoln, — that most remarkable character in modern
history. Sprung from such depths of poverty as can hardly be
understood in this community, living far removed from the cur-

yOSHUA R. GIDDINGS. 597

rents of political action, while a boy working by the month on
a Mississippi River flatboat, he saw at New Orleans, in 1829, a
slave auction and all its brutal accompaniments, and from that
hour his soul ceased not to loathe slavery, until in the wonderful
development of his life, he was enabled to speak the word that
broke four millions of fetters.

In the year 1833 the American Antislavery Society was or-
ganized at Philadelphia, with fpurteen members, and began to
make its protest against slavery. During the ten or twelve
years that followed this organization, the appeal had been so
fully made to the public conscience that both political parties
took the alarm, and determined to suppress agitation by every
means in their power.

In order to fix the place which Mr. Giddings occupied in the
great movement against slavery, it is necessary to make a brief
analysis of the forces arrayed against that institution at the time
he became prominent. They were : —

First William Lloyd Garrison and his followers, who insisted
on immediate and unconditional emancipation as the right of all
slaves, and the duty of all masters. Believing that the Federal
Constitution was the bulwark of slavery, they denounced it as
" a covenant with death and an agreement with hell," and de-
clined to vote or act with any political party.

Second. Those who believed the Constitution to be Anti-
slavery in its spirit, who could, therefore, support and defend
it, and who ultimately organized the Liberty party, and made
hostility to slavery their only issue.

Third. Those who were thoroughly antislavery in sentiment,
but thought it best to remain in one or the other of the great
political parties of the time, and carry on the reform by electing
such men as would oppose and limit slavery by all legal and
constitutional methods.

Though these three classes differed widely in sentiment, and
particularly in their practical methods, yet the term ** Abolition-
ist " was applied to all of them, and all suffered to a great extent
the public odium which rested on either class.

In the beginning of his political career, Mr. Giddings be-
longed to the third class. He was a Whig, and, except on
questions relating to slavery, acted with that party during the
first ten years of his Congressional life. He was elected in
1838, at the last session of the Twenty-fifth Congress, to fill a

598 yOSRUA R. GIDDINGS.

vacancy occaslooed by the resignation of his old law pre-
ceptor and intimate friend, Elisha Whittlesey, who had most
honorably served a continuous Congressional term of sixteen
years. Martin Van Bnrec was then President of the United
States, and James K. Polk was Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives. The alarm againht the antislavcry movement had
"already been sounded. In his annual message, two years before.
Tresident Jackson had referred to antislavery publications in
the Free States, and declared that they were ■■ calculated to
stir np insiirreetioA uid produce al! the horrors of a civil war";
diat they were opposed to " humanity and religion, and in vio-
lation of the Constitution and of the compromises on which
the Union was founded."

Mr. Giddings found but two men in Congress who had made
any public demonstration against slavery. These were the
venerable lohii Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, and William
Siade of Vermont Mr, Adams was thoroughly antislavcry in
sentiment, and had most ably defended the right of petition in
Congress, but at that time he had gone no further. Indeed,
he had on two occasions expressed the desire "that all debate
on the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia might be
avoided." Mr, Slade, the previous winter, had called down
upon himself a storm of indignation by offering to the House,
and approving, a memorial which prayed for the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia. While he was speaking,
the slaveholding members left the hall in a body, and threatened
the dissolution of the Union if such discussions were not pro-
hibited.

Mr. Giddings took his seat on December 3, 1838. On the
evening of that day a caucus of the dominant party was called to
devise measures to prevent the agitation of the slavery question ;
and eight days later, Mr. Atherton of New Hampshire intro-
duced, and the House passed, a series of resolutions concluding
with a rule which was afterwards known as the " Atherton gag,"
The resolutions declared, in substance, —

" First. That Congress had no jurisdiction over slavery in the States.

" Second. That petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia, and for the abolition of the interstate slave-trade, were in-
tended indirectly to alTecl slavery in the States.

" Third. That Congress had no right to do indirectly what it could not
do directly, and that the agitation of slavery in the District of Columbia

yOSHUA R. GIDDINGS. 599

and the Territories of the United States was against the spirit of the
Constitution.

" Fourth. That Congress in the exercise of its acknowledged powers,
had no right to discriminate between the institutions of the States with a
view of abolishing one and promoting the other.

" ' Resolved^ therefore^ That all attempts on the part of Congress to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia or the Territories, or to pro-
hibit the removal of slaves from State to State, or to discriminate between
the institutions of one portion of the confederacy and another, with tfu
views aforesaidy are a violation of the Constitution, destructive of the
fundamental principles on which the Union of these States rests, and
beyond the jurisdiction of Congress ; and that every petition, memorial,
resolution, proposition, or paper touching or relating in any way, or to
any extent whatever, to slavery, as aforesaid, or the abolition thereof,
shall, on the presentation thereof, without any further action thereon, be
laid on the table without being debated, printed, or referred.' " ^

These illogical resolutions were passed by an overwhelming
majority, and the concluding one became a rule of the House
by a vote of 1 73 to 26. It will be seen that, under this rule,
all petitions and propositions reflecting on slavery in any way
were to be laid on the table without debate, and without be-
ing printed. To his surprise, Mr. Giddings noticed that Mr.
Adams, almost alone, voted against the first of these proposi-
tions. Mr. Giddings privately asked Mr. Adams why he thus
voted, and that venerable statesman answered that, " /« case of
wary Congress and the Executive would become possessed of
full power over the institution, and might abolish it if deemed
necessary to save the government." ^ Nothing in the career of
Mr. Adams shows more strongly his far-sighted wisdom than
this declaration, which became the creed of the nation during
our late war. Nothing more strikingly exhibits his admirable
courage than this vote, which was generally reprehended even
by antislavery men, and the wisdom of which would not be
likely to be vindicated till many years after he should have
passed from the earth. From that time Mr. Giddings was the
devoted friend of Mr. Adams; he always looked to him for
advice and support, and was in turn honored by the confidence
and friendship of that great man.

A few weeks later, January 30, 1839, an incident occurred

^ History of the Rebellion, its Authors and Causes, by J. R. Giddings, pp. 122,
123 (New York, 1864).
* Ibid., p. 1 ^3, note.

€00 JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS. ■

which made a lasting impression upon the mind of Mr. Gid-
dings. A slave-dealer from the interior of Maryland drove a
party of sixty slaves in double file past the Capitol. The men
were handcuffed in pairs, and a long chain passing between the
files fastened the gang together. The women, who were not
chained, followed in the same order, and the small children
followed in a wagon. The slave-dealer was on horseback,
armed with pistols, bowie-knife, and a plantation whip. Mr,
Slade offered a resolution reciting these facts, and directing
a committee to inquire what legislation was necessary to pre-
vent a recurrence of such scenes. Amid great excitement the
" gag rule " was applied, the resolutions were laid on the table,
and no debate was permitted.

On the 13th of February, 1839, Mr. Giddings made his first
speech in Congress. A bill was pending in committee of the
whole to appropriate $30,000 to build a bridge in the District
of Columbia across the Potomac. Mr. Giddings moved to
strike out the enacting clause, and declared his opposition to
any appropriation of public money for the benefit of the people
of that District, so long as they maintained a commerce in the
bodies of their fellow-men. They had lately asked Congress to
exclude all petitions from the people of the Free States on the
subject of this commerce, and he declared himself unwilling to
repay such insults to his constituents by taxing them to build
up a slave market. The members had recently enjoyed an
opportunity to judge of the barbarism of this slave trade.
While coming to the Capitol, they had been compelled to turn
aside to make room for the passage of a herd of human chat-
tels, chained, and on their way to the slave market. These
remarks created a great sensation, and Mr. Rives of Virginia
called Mr. Giddings to order. The chairman decided that he
was in order, and he attempted to proceed,, when Mr. Glas-
cock of Georgia declared that, if such arguments were to be
permitted, the Union would be dissolved. Mr. Giddings replied
that the inference to be drawn from such threats was that the
Union was based on the slave trade. Mr. Glascock answered

with an oath, "You are a liar! " The chairman became

alarmed at the increasing excitement, declared Mr. Giddings
out of order, and the House refused to allow him to proceed.

From that day forward, to the end of his life, Mr. Giddings
was hated by the slave power, and assailed in the bitterest

JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS. 6oi

manner. Though many Northern members secretly sympa-
thized with his speech, yet few ventured to give it public
indorsement.

It is impossible, in the space of this address, to do justice
to the Congressional life of Mr. Giddings, or to follow, ex-
cept in the most general way, the steps by which he bravely
pursued that stormy career of twenty years' duration, and
stamped his name and memory forever on the records of the
country. I must content myself with referring briefly to a few
points which may aid in illustrating the great work of his life.

He did not, and could not, at first, comprehend its magnitude.
Most of the violence and bigotry he had seen exhibited against
freedom came from the South, and from the Democratic party.
The campaign of 1840 inspired him with the hope that the
Whig party, with which he was identified, would serve the in-
terests of freedom. His own influence and usefulness as a
member of Congress depended in a great measure upon the
unity of that party, and his good standing as a member of it.

There was much antislavery feeling throughout the country,
but it had not been so consolidated and organized as to de-
velop any practical plan of political action. In his work on
the Causes of the Rebellion, Mr. Giddings has well described
the state of public feeling, and his own situation at that time.
After stating that, in the Twenty-sixth Congress (1839-41),
one more avowed advocate of liberty had been added to the
House, thus making three besides himself, he says : —

"These four members stood aloof from political parties whenever
subjects involving moral principle were agitated, or the rights of human-
ity were in issue. Many Northern Whigs sympathized with them, but
the writer is not aware that any other member was willing to vote against
his party on any question touching slavery. The author was, perhaps,
as strongly opposed to slavery as either of the gentlemen referred to, and
felt as deeply humiliated by the despotism to which members of Con-
gress were subjected, but as yet he had formed in his own mind no
definite course of action for himself, further than a general opposition to
slavery. There were also in the country many abolition societies. They
urged the abolition of slavery in general terms, but proposed no definite
plan of operations." ^

" General Harrison was elected by a triumphant vote, and the pres-
tige of the Democratic party was somewhat impaired The Whig

1 The Rebellion, its Authors and Causes, p. 134.

6oa JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS.

members of Congress had professed disgust ax the gag rules under which
they were constrained to sit, and the Whig press of the country had
condemaed the suppression of debate, as well as prohibiting the right
of petition, and no one appeared to doubt that on coming into power
that party would restore diese natural and constitutional prerogatives of
the people." '

In the winter of 1840-41 the suggestion was made by Mr,
Giddings, and approved by Mr. Adams and the two other anti-
slavery members, that, in order to regain the freedom of debate,
they should test the extent to which they would be permitted
to discuss, collaterally, questions involving the institution of
slavery, Mr. Giddings volunteered to make the effort. He
made a careful study of the Florida war and its causes, and
when, on the 9th of February, 1841, a bill was under considera-
tion, appropriating $100,000 for the removal of certain Seminole
chiefs and warriors to the west of the Mississippi, he addressed
the House in opposition to its passage. Premising that the
propriety of this appropriation depended upon the Justice of
the war, he entered into an examination of its causes and the
means by which it had been waged. Taking his text from the
title of the bill, he showed that the word Seminole was an
Indian term, which signified "runaway" or "fugitive"; that
the Seminole tribe consisted largely of the descendants of ne-
groes who had escaped from slavery, and had become free by
entering the everglades of Florida while it was a free province
of Spain; and that the war had been begun and prosecuted for
the purpose of enslaving these exiles of Florida. When the
purpose of this speech became manifest, determined and re-
peated efforts were made to prevent its delivery; but Mr. Gid-
dings had so carefully guarded his line of thought, and so
closely connected his points with the bill before the House,
that he was permitted to proceed. He called attention to the
fact that our army were employing Spanish bloodhounds in
capturing these fugitives, and that the free people of the North
were taxed to pay for these barbarous instruments of slavery
and war. This speech was widely scattered throughout the
North, and made a profound sensation. Mr. Giddings subse-
quently followed out the history of the Florida war more fully,
and has Icf^ us the result of his labors in a volume entitled
" The Exiles of Florida," which is a chapter of our history of
* Itnd., p. 142.

I

yOSHUA R. GIDDINGS. 603

strange and thrilling interest The delivery of this speech was
the restoration of the freedom of debate, but it cost Mr. Gid-
dings whatever influence he may have hoped to exercise with
the incoming administration of General Harrison.

I cannot omit from this brief review a somewhat detailed
account of the causes which led to the censure of Mr. Giddings
in 1842, and to his conduct on that occasion.

In the autumn of 184 1, the Creole, an American slave-ship,
sailed from Richmond for New Orleans with a cargo of one hun-
dred and thirty-six slaves. While at sea the slaves rose upon
the master and crew, and asserted their liberty. In the struggle,
one of the slave-dealers was killed ; the slaves gained possession
of the vessel and entered the British port of Nassau, where the
right to freedom was recognized and protected. This event
created intense excitement throughout the United States. The
owners of the negroes called upon the President of the United
States for compensation for their slaves, and Mr. Tyler espoused
their cause. Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, in a letter
addressed to Edward Everett, United States Minister at London,
avowed the intention of the government, in the interests of the
owners, to demand indemnification for the slaves. Mr. Gid-
dings, seeing the influence of our government thus prostituted
to the support of the slave trade, brought the subject before
Congress, on the 21st of March, 1842, in a series of resolutions
declaring that, as slavery was an abridgment of natural rights,
it could have no force beyond the jurisdiction which created it ;
that when a ship left the waters of any State, the persons on
board ceased to be subject to the slave laws of such State, and
thenceforth came under the jurisdiction of the United States,
which had no constitutional authority to hold slaves ; that the
persons on board the Creole, in resuming their natural rights,
violated no law of the United States, incurred no legal penalty,
and were justly liable to no punishment; and that any attempt
to rc-enslave them was unauthorized by the Constitution and
incompatible with the national honor. These resolutions cre-
ated an excitement so intense that Mr. Giddings was prevailed
upon temporarily to withdraw them, declaring his intention,
however, to present them on a future occasion. Mr. Botts of Vir-
ginia thereupon introduced a resolution declaring the conduct
of Mr. Giddings in offering the resolutions to be " altogether
unwarranted and unwarrantable, and deserving the severest

tint yosaxTA x. C/Djattfos.

eondemnfttion of the people of this country, and of this body in
particular."' The previous question being ordered, Mr. Gid-
dlngs was denied the right of self-defence, and the resolution
was adopted by a vote of 125 yeas to 69 nays. Mr. Giddings
instantly resigned his seat in Congress, and came home; but,
as Jrou will remember, he was re-elected by a larger majority
than ever before, and returned to his seat with instructions to
maintain the doctrines he had asserted. He resumed his seat
1H1 tiMy Sth, after an absence of less than six weeks from the
' ptssagecf the vote of censure.
'-. SbMtfy after his return,^ he made an elaborate speech on a
propotitkin to reduce the army, which was opposed, on the
ground that a war might grow out of the Creole affair. In
reply to Mr. Caleb Cushing's declaration that there was "a
question of honor with the British government growing out of
the Creole question," and that the arguments of Mr. Giddings
were " British arguments and an approximation to treason." Mr.
Giddings denied that the government had or could ever have
an/thing to do with that transaction; it could not honorably
lend any encouragement to that " execrable commerce in
human flesh " ; the government was forbidden by every spirit
of morality, of national honor, to lend assistance to those
engaged in a traffic in the bodies of men, women, and children.
He woyld rejoice if every slave shipped from our slave-breeding
States could regain his liberty, either by strength of his own
arms, or by landing on some British island. Instead of main-
taining an army to sustain this traffic, he would pass laws to
punish every man who made merchandise of the image of the
Creator. He proceeded in a very direct and conclusive argu-
ment to show that, though slavery might be maintained within
the States under their local laws, yet the operation of those laws
was confined within their limits, and could not extend into other
States, nor upon the high seas. This is a summary; —

" When the ship Creole left the State of Virginia, therefore, and
went beyond the jurisdiction of her laws, the slave code ceased to
operate upon those on board, and they were governed by the common
law moditied by the laws of Congress, under which no slavery could
exist He was aware that the expression of these views was not agree-
able to those around him, but no member would deny their correctness.
They had been so long accustomed to submit silently to these encroach-
> The Rebellion, iu Authors and Cauaes, p. 183. * June 4, 1843.

yOSHUA R. GIDDINGS. 605

ments of the slave power, that it was generally expected they would
continue to submit. It was their duty to speak frankly their sentiments
and the sentiments of their people, and those whom he represented were
unwilling to be made parties to this purchase and sale of men. They
had no intention to shed their blood in defence of this slave trade.
They would far rather hang every pirate who had dealt in human flesh
upon our coast, than go to war for their protection. They saw not the
* mutiny ' of these resisting victims, but the piracy of those who sought
to restrain them in their freedom. The Secretary of State lytd referred
to these people as * murderers.* They were on the high seas, held in
subjection without law, and in violation of justice. In the spirit and
dignity ol their manhood, they rose and asserted the rights with which
the God of nature had endowed them. The slave-dealer thrust him-
self between them and their freedom, and in defending their lives and
liberty they slew him, for which you and I and all mankind honored
them ; the whole world would say they did right. Would the honorable
Secretary have done less ? If so, he would not have deserved the name
of man. Yet he called this high, heroic duty * murder.' Our patriot
fathers declared that governments are instituted among men to secure
to all the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but
the honorable Secretary appeared to think that their principal design
was to secure slave-drivers in the pursuit 0/ their execrable vocation. But
the Creator had not left his attributes of truth and justice to depend
upon the favor of men. They were omnipotent, and would prevail.
When political strifes should cease, when the Secretary and he should
sleep in their graves, when their names should disappear from the
records of time, the great, undying truth, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to life
and liberty, would be acknowledged and observed." ^

In this speech Mr. Giddings had nobly vindicated the free-
dom of debate and the rights of human nature. It should not
be forgotten that the stand taken by this heroic man cost him
not only all executive influence, but also social position at
Washington. The social despotism of the slave power has
never been adequately appreciated. We all remember that it
was frequently said, in the early struggle with slavery, that the
atmosphere of Washington had a strongly debasing influence on
the love of freedom which Northern representatives had cher-
ished at home. This result was achieved by the systematic
efforts of the slave power so to wield the social forces as to
draw and hold within the circle of their influence all the young

^ Speeches in Congress, by J. R. Giddings, (1853,) P* 21.

^

Co6 JOSHUA R. GWDINGS.

men of promise and ambition who found seats in the national
1^'gisiature. The average man cannot, with perfect composure.
speak and vote against the wishes of the man with whom he has
just broken the bread of hospitality.

For many years there was in Washington a most brilliant
and attractive social organization, controlled absolutely by the
slave power. Cabinet ministers and members of Congress from
the South lavished their wealth to add to its attractiveness.
And the one indispensable condition of admission was support
and defence of the peculiar institution, or at least silence in
regard to it. This influence was all the more potent, because
it was private and silent in its operation. Those who were not
admitted to this circle were quietly treated as though unworthy,
from lack of culture or moral excellence. From the moment
that Mr. Giddings had avowed his hostility to slavery, he was
not only shut out from the society of which I have spoken, but
was treated with m.arkcd incivility and coldness by his fellow-
members. In his work on the Causes of the Rebellion, he
speaks of this social ostracism in the most manly way, and we
can see that his genial nature suffered from this cause. Speak-
ing of the session of 1841 he says: " Personal feeling began to
take the place of political sympathy; the social relations of
members were broken up, and the common civilities of life were
no longer observed by a portion of the Southern members.
Personal bitterness was manifested toward the writer more than
toward any other member. There were not, probably, a dozen
slaveholding members who at that period recognized him while
passing on the street, or when meeting him in the hall of
Representatives." '

Again, speaking of the state of society in 1 843, he says : " At
Washing;ton the author continued to be stigmatized as an 'Abo-
litionist,' ' an agitator,' ' one who was seeking notoriety.' Public
meetings of the Democratic party adopted resolutions denoun-
cing him; and the Democratic papers assailed him. Nor did
the Whig press sustain him. He did not receive those civilities
usually extended to members of Congress, He exchanged
cards with but few; and wholly abstained from making calls of
ceremony." *

It is not a light thing for a man like Mr. Giddings to pass
a large part of twenty years in the manner here described.
I The Rebellion, its Aolhon *nd Ckiues, p. 158. * Ibid., p. 316.

JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS. €07

So far as I have been able to discover, Mr. Giddings was the
first to state a national and practical ground on which members
of Congress, and the people sustaining them, could effectively
resist the institution of slavery. This statement was made in a
speech delivered in the House of Representatives, February 13,
1844. After showing that slavery was the creature of State law,
and disclaiming any right or purpose to interfere with it in the
States where it existed, he said : " Whatever issue I take with
Southern gentlemen is based entirely upon this plain and ob-
vious doctrine of the Federal Constitution, — that this govern-
ment possesses no power whatever to involve the people of the
Free States in the support of slavery." . This doctrine forms a
rally ing-point for all subsequent Congressional resistance to the
encroachments of slavery. All attempts to appropriate money
to pay for fugitive slaves, for slaves lost in war, or by shipwreck
on foreign islands, — all attempts to annex foreign territory for
the purpose of extending the area of slavery, or to admit new
Slave States into the Union, — in short, all federal legislation in
aid of slavery was thereafter resisted on that ground, for the
clear statement of which the friends of liberty were indebted to
Mr. Giddings.

I cannot follow the history of his long and fierce struggle
with the defenders of slavery. The older men of this audience
remember how he withstood taunts and angry scorn, — how
he stood at his post when pistols were levelled at him, when
knives were brandished, and bludgeons were lifted to threaten
his life and silence his voice.

The great power of Napoleon was seen in the rapidity and
certainty with which he discovered the vulnerable point in the
enemy's line, and the terrible swiftness with which he dealt his
blows. With something of the same quality, Mr. Giddings was
able to determine the weak points of his adversaries, — to deter-
mine the opportune moment to strike.

He continued to act with the Whig party till 1848, when he
took a leading part in organizing the Free Soil movement at
the Buffalo Convention. He then boldly denounced both the
Whig and Democratic parties as hostile to liberty, and, taking
the field against their combined opposition, carried his district
for the Free Soil party. In 1856 he helped to organize the
Republican party, and in his library in Jefferson wrote the
resolution which formed the leading doctrine promulgated by

6o8 JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS.

that party at the Philadelphia Convention. In i8s9 he closed
his twenty years of service in Congress. Shortly after the
accession of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency, he was appointed
United States Consul-General of Canada, and died at his post
of duty in May, 1864.

I cannot forbear quoting a passage from a letter which I have
lately received from one of his old neighbors, a citizen of this
place, who was his devoted friend for many years, and who, in
clear and felicitous language, thus expresses his appreciation of
Mr, Giddings's character : —

" His perception of the interior character of events — seeing how they
tended and how they must result — was superior to the great mass of
politicians ; and he had tiie sagacity lo see that it was wisdom to trust
this power of seeing his way before hira. This, with an earnest regard
for the right, made him what he was ; and he was almost wholly given
uji to his chosen labors in the political world, even at home. In private
life his pursuits were the same as in public, and he thought and talked
of the same things at home and abroiid. If this ceased to be his snbject,
it gave place to personal anecdotes of the men of his day and his field,
or 10 the baiHnage of a strong mind at playful rest. He was compara-
tively a strangtT to general literature, and his tlieolugical thinking led
him to liberal views of the subject of religion. On the great subject
to which his public life was devoted, he knew the exact position that
belonged to him, and he fought the battle with the most effective weap-
ons, in the choice of which he seemed never to have been mbtaken,
nor to have ill timed a blow at the enemy he had volunteered to fight.
Politically he was sound and strong ; and he appeared to know — what
so many never learn — that it was not necessary for him to sacrifice any
principle for success, and he had the patience to wait for success till
he found it in victory. During a period of almost forty yean his life
formed no small part of the history of our country, and his name is
as familiar to the world as it is here at home among his neighbors. Hia
manners were very simple, and his relations to his neighbors extremely
democratic. He treated all men alike, and in the town and county
knew everybody, and met them on terms of easy familiarity. This town
is indebted to him, in a great degree, for the democratic maimers that
have always characterized it. During the recesses of Congress, when
at home, he was usually among the people, and in summer his favorite
amusement was a game of base-ball on the old-fashioned plan, of which
the season opened on his return home, and not before."

These glimpses of his home life will, I am sure, aid in calliog
htm up to your minds as you knew him.

yOSHUA R. GIDDINGS. 609

And now, in conclusion, I call your attention to the prominent
place he must always occupy in the history of the great events
which have marked the passage of the Republic from slavery to
freedom. The story of his life is a large part of the history of
his country. Many of his speeches now read like prophecy.
At the time of their delivery, they were regarded by the ma-
jority of his contemporaries as the dreams of a fanatic. He led
the sentiments of his constituents by becoming their instructor ;
and if at any time they did not agree with his doctrines, they
still respected the sincerity of his convictions, and admired the
courage with which he proclaimed them. His life is a per-
petual rebuke to those politicians who drive before the wind of
popular opinion, and a hopeful and inspiring example to those
who follow their convictions of truth in the hope of final success
and the approval of mankind. Thousands of his comrades in
the great struggle will delight to visit this monument, and draw
inspiration from the lessons of his life.

On hearing that these ceremonies were to take place, the
venerable Gerritt Smith wrote to a member of the Giddings
family a letter, from which I am permitted to quote the follow-
ing : — "I never had a truer friend than was your honored and
beloved father. He was emphatically a great and good man,
and his country should never forget the services he rendered
her. I wish I could see his monument. Perhaps I may yet
feel able to travel to it, and enjoy the privilege of being inspired
by its presence."

Charles Sumner also writes: — "I never think of your father
without a sense of gratitude for his whole life. Such an ex-
ample is much for Ohio, — much for the whole country. He
was one of our great men. I regret that I cannot be present at
the proposed celebration."

Fellow-citizens of Ashtabula County, the grave and the mon-
ument of Giddings are left with you. His life and fame belong
to his country and to all mankind.

VOL. L 39

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870.

DELIVERED AT MANSFIELD, OHIO,
Auoorr «7, 1S70.

FELLOW-CmZENS,— TTie time lias arrived when
people of Ohio are about to resume those powers whidi 'I
two years ago they intniated to their representatives in i
councils of the State and nation. Several important officers
the executive and judicial depaitnents of our State government,
and all the representatives to which Ohio is entitled in one
branch of the national legislature for the next two years, are
soon to be chosen by the people, In accordance with a time-
honored custom, the event is made an occasion when the peo-
ple re-examine the foundations on which their governments are
built, and inspect the work of their servants to see if it has been
done honestly and wisely, in accordance with the plans of the
master-builders. This frequent resumption of power by the
people themselves is the American method of managing revo-
lutions, or rather of avoiding them. Its value, as a principle of
government, finds a striking illustration in the condition of the
United States as compared with that of Europe at the present
moment. Two nations of highest civilization, each having a
population of nearly forty millions of souls, within the last six
weeks, have put two millions of their best citizens into battle
array, and are bringing measureless disaster upon each other
and upon all Europe, because a third nation proposed to invite
a young man to fill the office made vacant by the expulsion of
a weak woman. Even if the cause of the Franco-German war
be stated more broadly, it must still be charged to the personal
md ambition of not more than three or four persons,
— -— ^"*se j^j. ba^vbles called crowns. For that vague and shadowy
pride P '° 1 called " the balance of power," all thi nations of
who We.
Phanfoir

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 61 1

Europe maintain vast armaments on sea and land, and stand
ready at any moment to deluge their continent in blood. In
nearly all their wars, the question is one of family, dynasty, or
other matter of monarchical concern. It is the king's quarrel
and the people's fight He plots and schemes, while they pay
and bleed. Happily for us, the founders of our republic estab-
lished a " government of the people, by the people, and for the
people," and our first President left us as a farewell legacy the
sentiment and warning that the nation should forever keep
clear of entangling alliances and interferences with the quarrels
of other states.

Although, when foreign or domestic war assails our republic,
the whole nation can form in order of battle, and make all its
soil one vast camp, yet in time of peace, relying on the obe-
dience of all to the lawfully expressed will of the majority, we
reduce our army and navy to the smallest size consistent with a
proper police of the sea and the shore, and, keeping abreast
with the developments of military and naval science, trust to
our continental position and immense resources to render us safe
against foreign assaults, and enable us to direct our vast ener-
gies to the arts of peace and civilization. The political party
whose doctrines and aspirations accomplish most in this di-
rection will enjoy the confidence and support of our people.
By this test all political organizations must be judged. I confi-
dently challenge its most searching application in a comparison
of the careers, doctrines, and characters of the Republican and
Democratic parties of to-day.

Democratic leaders will hardly dare to appeal to the history
of their party during the last eventful decade as a pledge of
their fitness to be trusted with power. The shameful story is a
painful one to rehearse. The people know it by heart, and I
shall not weary you with the recital, but will only remind you
of a few significant facts which no intelligent Democrat will
deny.

I. That after a long period of Democratic subordination to
the interests of the slave power, and the prostitution of every
department of the national government to the support and ex-
tension of slavery, the Republican party, in i860, made a suc-
cessful appeal to the people through the ballot-box to forbid
the further spread of that baneful institution; and thereupon
the most formidable conspiracy known in history was hatched

6l3 POLITICAL JSSVMS Of 1870.

in the bosom of the Democratic pu^ for the destnidfoji of Qk
nation and the perpetuatioa of human bondage. In ^>a <CCK|I-
Bpinuynot one Republican took part; Its leai^rs fud ^a{90ft-
ers were Democrats all.

3. That, from the beginning to the end of our great war for
the preservation of the Union, the Democratic partj^ through its
conventions and other organs of opinion and power, threw the
whole weight of its political and moral influence against the
Union and in favor of the Rebellion. Whether the nation
called for men to fight, for money to pay, or for the destruction
of slaveiy as a means of weakening the enemy, these and all
similar measures met the steady and persistent opposition of
the Democratic party. Of course I do not speak of all Demo-
crats as individuals, but of the party organization as such.

3. That since the war all the leading meaiiures deemed ne-
cessary to secure the fruits of the contest, and to prevent the
recumnce of secession and rebellion, have met with almost
unanimous oppoution from the Democratic party. This state-
ment finds ample proof in the fact that on the passage of every
statute and constitutional amendment for the abolition of slav-
ery, for granting civil and political rights to those made free
by the war, for making the payment of the Rebel debt and
the repudiation of the national debt impossible, for restoring
the rebellious States in the interest of liberty and loyalty, for
securing equal and exact justice to all citizens, — I say. on the
passage of all acts and amendments for 'these purposes the
Democratic party, through the votes of its approved repre-
sentatives, has been the party of obstruction and hindrance,
whose chief if not sole principle of action has been to oppose
whatever the party in power was doing.

Over against this shameful record stands the honorable rec-
ord of the Republican party. Inspired with the love of liberty
and union, that party saved and preserved both. Its pathway
across the decade just closed is crowded mth imperishable
monuments of heroic sacrifice, of courageous wisdom, of deep
and abiding faith in the final triumph of truth and justice, —
monuments which a grateful posterity will forever cherish,
but in the glory of which the Democratic party has no share.
During these terrible years the Republican party was again and
again charged with responsibilities immeasurably great, and
with trusts precious beyond price. The very life of the nation

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 613

was committed to its care. In more than one crisis the defeat
of the Republican party would have been the dismemberment
of the Union, the triumph of the Rebellion. In every such
crisis the defeat of the Democratic party was the salvation of
the republic. It is a fearful thing, fellow-citizens, to be a mem-
ber of a political party whose success is a victory for the armed
enemies of our country. Will any one who hears me deny that
such would have been the result of Vallandigham's election
as Governor of Ohio, in 1863? I challenge the leaders of the
Democratic party to show any substantial measures which they
proposed during all those years that would have resulted in the
honor and safety of the nation, or in securing liberty and justice
to its citizens.

I do not underestimate the value of an opposition party in
popular government. An intelligent opposition is always valu-
able as a check to the abuse of power. To construct, build,
preserve, and defend, are the duties of those who manage public
affairs. To oppose unwise measures and propose better ones is
the worthy work of an opposition party. But in what instance
have the Democracy done this? Occasionally they have been
intrusted with the conduct of affairs in some of the States. But
in every such case their course has been reactionary and violent.
Will they rest their claim to wise statesmanship on their legis-
lation for Ohio in 1868-69? That test would be perilous to
their reputation to the last degree. I do not claim that the
past history of parties shall be the chief reason for intrusting
them with power, or excluding them from it ; but such records
as the two parties of the country have made since i860 afford
strong presumptive evidence that it is safe and wise to trust
the Republican party, and dangerous and unwise to trust the
Democratic party.

But I turn from this political retrospect. The life of the re-
public goes on developing new questions and new necessities.
What are its present wants, and what policy will best meet
them? What are the two great parties doing and proposing
for the immediate future? To these questions I cheerfully at-
tempt answers. Others more immediately connected with the
government of Ohio will discuss the issues of State politics.
On this occasion I shall speak mainly of Congfress and the
Republican administration at Washington.

In the first place, we announce the completion of the great

614 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 1

work of reconstruction. The suffrage has been conferred on 1
those who were lately slaves; and this new guaranty of free- I
dom has been set like a fixed star in the firmament of the Con- j
stitution. Manhood, not the accident of race or color, is now I
the basis of our government. As a result, the negro question ]
is substantially removed from the arena of American politics. 1
The colored men of this country, having now equal rights be-
fore the law, must vindicate their own manhood, and prove by 1
their own efforts the wisdom of the policy which has placed
their destiny in their own hands.

During the last session, three more of the lately rebellious '
Stales were restored to their places in the Union, and to repre-
sentation in both branches of Congress. Georgia, the last of
the insurgent eleven, has compUcd with the terms of restoration,
and has been declared entitled to representation. This virtually
closes the difScult work of restoration. The Southern people
are fa.st regaining their prosperity. One more cotton crop like
that of last year will make the South more wealthy and prosper-
ous than ever before, and, freed from the dead weight of slaver^',
a bright career is opening before her people. The time is not
far distant when her thoughtful citizens will sec that the success
of the Union cause conferred upon her incalculable blessings,
and saved her from the saddest of destinies. Laws have also
been passed to enforce the new Amendments to the Constitu-
tion, and nothing can now disturb these great guaranties unless
it be the reactionary power of the Democracy. Their purpose
in this direction was exhibited in a vote given on the nth of
July last, in the House of Representatives, on a resolution de-
claring that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, hav-
ing been duly ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of
the States, had thus become part of the Constitution, binding
and obligatory upon all officers of the national and State gov-
ernments, and upon all citizens of the United States. Of the
thirty-four Democrats who voted on this resolution, only three
voted for it; thirty -one voted against it. Will the people of
Ohio- sustain the Democratic party in this revolutionary con-
duct? If the Democrats can select a part of the Constitution
which they declare is not binding upon the people, another
party may nullify the rest, and there is an end of law, and the
beginning of anarchy. There are no bounds which such a
spirit of reaction may not overleap. If I understand the spirit

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 615

and sentiment of the American people, they will never permit
the great work accomplished during the past ten years to be
destroyed by the men whose bitter opposition is encountered
at every step.

But now that the war and slavery are ended, and reconstruc-
tion is virtually completed, the subject of deepest interest to the
people is the management of their financial affairs. They have
shown themselves ready and willing to bear all burdens which
may be necessary to support the government, to maintain its
honor at home and abroad, to meet all its just obligations, and
to preserve inviolable the public faith; but they will hold to
the strictest account those who are intrusted with the manage-
ment of the revenues. I take great pleasure in rendering an
account of the manner in which the Republican party and the
administration of President Grant have discharged that duty.

And, first, I call attention to the revenues of the nation, —
the money paid by the people into the public treasury. In the
year ending June 30, 1866, the receipts from taxes, and all other
sources except loans, had reached the highest figure ever known,
the sum of $558,032,620. Between that period and the 20th of
July, 1868, five different laws were passed repealing taxes which
had produced in the aggregate a revenue of $173,000,000. If
these repealed laws were in force to-day, the people would
pay $200,000,000 more of tax per annum than they now pay.
The growth of our wealth would have shown an increase of
$27,000,000 over and above that of 1866.

The total receipts for 1867-68, exclusive of loans, were 1405,638,038.32
The total receipts for 1868-69, exclusive of loans, were 370,943,747.21
The total receipts for 1869-70, exclusive of loans, were 411,255,477.63

The last fiscal year shows an increase of more than $40,000,000
over the preceding year, and the increase for the current year
is thus far still greater.

It is instructive to inquire how this large increase of revenue
has been produced. It is mainly due to the more honest and
faithful collection of the revenues since General Grant became
President. I hold in my hand an official statement, signed by
Columbus Delano, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
which exhibits fifteen of the main sources from which our in-
ternal revenues are drawn ; it exhibits also the amounts received
from each source during the last fourteen months of Johnson's

■■■■*-'^^®sb;«

6i6

POJJTICAL ISSVSS &Jf t^

admiiilstratioa, and for the first foorteeit montiu of Gf«irt^ «1-
miotstiatloiL This table shows a total wcrcase from tibcs*
source* of more than $50^000,000, beiiqj;-B gain (^-33.5 per
cent On one only of these sources has there been « decrease*
and that is penalties for vicdatiott of the reveanelawt. Time .
has been a falling off of forQr per cent in tile receipts from tUft, -
source, thus showing that the revenue has been more fully
pidd, witii less fraud and evasion than before. Some of these
items are very suggestive. On distilled spirits the tax collected
during tiie first 'fourteed months of General Grant's term is
greater by more than $25,500,000 than was collected during .
the last foUTteeO monlhs of Hr; Johnson's term. This great
disparity is made all th^ more'strildi^ by the fact that the tax
was two dollars per gallon in the one case, and only sixty-five
ceiits per gallon In die other. On tobacco the gain was nearly

$i3,50o.ooa ^T

In submitting the following tablt, it is proptir to seawrfc -tiul -
H does not exhibit all the recdpts of internal reMaseW bsUk'i
periods, those on which Ae tax has been repeided bdngo

CampiraHot Statiment, thewh^ Xatifilt from tamt General Stttctt wf 7.

Jratn January I, 1868, te Fibmary 38, l86g, imluiwi, and frim tfarck I, 1869,
te Afrii 30, 1870, intitahn; aim, incraue er dtcrtast, and ittcrtait or detrax

• MatiS.ll

«Bth.r

Anidu in Sch«dii;g A

li,48ll.7<i.8.

7flJSi97S-19
31.1«3.J7I-Bi

M9.7«i^7

7J,*}S..6

i.S97,Sqaia I

i,7te,iB«.cB

1,679.87*56

JJ.W »04,S4j.»9O.9i )o,S7],Uj.i)

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 617

I will say in simple justice to the former administrations, that
probably four per cent of the increase results from the increase
of national wealth. But making all due allowances, the conclu-
sion is irresistible that this remarkable increase in our revenues
is mainly due to the more honest and efficient collection of the
taxes.

The reduction of expenditures is equally striking, including
the payment of interest on the public debt : —

The total expenditures of the United States for the fiscal

year 1867-68 were I3 7 7,340, 284.86

The total expenditures of the United States for the fiscal

year 1868-69 were if32i>490»597-75

The total expenditures of the United States for the fiscal

year 1869-70 were {292,124,055. 18

The fiscal year that ended eight months before General Grant
was inaugurated showed an excess of receipts over expend-
itures of less than $29,000,000. The year that ended four
months after his inauguration showed an excess of nearly
$49*500,000. The year that ended June 30, 1870, the first full
fiscal year of President Grant's term, showed an excess of more
than $119,000,000. Yet the rate of taxation was not increased
on a single article during the year. Part of the reduction of ex-
penditures is due to the fact that such war claims as back pay
and bounties of soldiers are now nearly paid off; but, on the
other hand, the pension list is larger than ever before, and in
a growing nation nominal expenditures constantly increase.
Making all due allowance on both sides of the ledger, this great
reduction of expenses is clearly due to increased economy in
the management of public affairs. I challenge our Democratic
friends to gainsay a single fact that I have submitted. In his
recent speech at Delaware, General Morgan takes occasion to
criticise special items of expenditure, but he does not venture
to state the totals either of receipts or expenses, much less does
he compare the financial work of the present administration
with that of the last.

But, fellow-citizens, you have a right to know what has been
done with the surplus of receipts over expenditures. I hope
there is not an American citizen who will not be proud to know
that, from the inauguration of General Grant to the first day of
the present month, the principal of the public debt has been

6l8 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870.

paid and cancelled to the extent of one sixteenth of its whole
amount, and the annual interest has been reduced by the sum

of at least $8,500,000,

On the I si of March, 1869, the public debt, less cash

in the Treasury, was $3,525,463,260.0

On the ist of Augusl, 1870, tht public debt, less cash

in the Treasury, was 2,369,314,076.06 I

Showing a net decrease of ^156,139,184.01

This result has had no parallel since the war. I have showa j
you the incomes and outgoes, the surplus and what has been 1
done with the surplus. If this management of the people's
money has not been wise and honest, please to show me an ex-
ample of administrative wisdom and honesty.

It is a peculiar characteristic of the American people, that I
they arc restive under debt, and are willing to make great sac-
rifices to reduce and liquidate all their pecuniary obligations..]
European writers have frequently noticed this peculiarity, as ]
contrasted with the disposition of other nations to reduce taxes 1
rather than debts. The London Times recently said that [
tions, like families, have skeletons in their closets, the ghast-
liest of which are their public debts. If an Englishman sees a
statement of the British debt once a year, it is because he
makes special inquiry at the proper office. The payment of
the principal has almost ceased to be a subject of discussion.
"But." continued the Times, "our American cousins have a
strange fancy for examining their skeleton. They bring it out
of the closet once a month, weigh it and measure its exact size,
and publish it in every hamlet. Its decrease is the glory of ad-
ministrations and the pride of the people." I rejoice that this
is the spirit of our people ; and I hope that a substantial reduc-
tion of the debt each year will be our fixed policy. But I do
not believe that the industry of the nation should be taxed to
make the reduction so rapid as it has been during the last year
and a half. The great destruction of wealth caused by the war,
and the great strain to which the resources of the people were
subjected during the war and since, make it a matter of wise
economy to lighten the burden as much as possible, and allow
industry to recover its tone. Again, we are gradually passing
down from the high prices and quick gains of war, and taxes
should be adjusted to the new conditions. I cannot, therefore.

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 619

sympathize with those who think that Congress, at the late ses-
sion, went too far in the reduction of taxation.

In addition to the $173,000,000 of reduction previously made
by Congress since June, 1866, the law of July 14, 1870, provides
for a further reduction of taxes. That law repeals taxes which,
during the last year, produced revenue amounting to more than
$81,000,000. A part of this reduction will take effect on the
1st of October next, and a part at the beginning of the next
year. The reduction made by the law of July 14 is distributed
as follows : —

I. Internal Revenue Taxation.

1. All special taxes (licenses) except on distilled

and fermented liquors and tobacco . . . 1 10,6 74,000

2. Gross receipts 6,784,000

3. Sales, except on liquors and tobacco . . . 8,804,000

4. Incomes, reduction to two and one half per

cent on incomes over |2,ooo 23,700,000

5. Legacies and successions, articles in Schedule

A, and passports 3,900,000

6. Stamps on receipts, and on promissory notes

for less than lioo 1,350,000

Total reduction of internal taxes 155^212,000

II. Tariff Duties,

1. On tea, coffee, and sugars {20,500,000

2. On spices 1,500,000

3. On fruits and nuts 750,000

4. On pig-iron and scrap-iron 540,000

5. On about one hundred articles made free of

duty 2,750,000

Total tariff reduction {26,040,000

The two classes of reductions thus made, if measured by the
revenues of last year, will amount to more than $81,000,000.
One fifth of the whole burden of national taxation now borne
by the people of the United States will be removed by this law.
The law also provides for a large reduction of officers now em-
ployed in the assessment and collection of the revenue. But
on a few articles, mainly agricultural products, the tariff was
increased to the aggregate amount of two and a third millions
of dollars.

G20 J^UTtCAt ISSUMS &F ify^

- On tins grot measure of relief, the final vote in fte Hoose of
Representatives was taken on the 13^1 of July. The ayes aqd
noes were callied, and Ae vote stood 144 ayes and 49 noes.
Fifty-five Democrats answered to ^Ir names; eigfat of tbeqi
voted for die bill, forty-seven against it Notone CAio Demo-
oat voted fpr it There may have been reasons of par^ ^c^cy
why these gentlemen refused to Ui^ten the hardens ci the pub- •
lie I leave It to them to explain.

Whether the-teduction was wisely tUstrilHited among the. nu-
merous subjects of taxation is a question on which tiae best of
men may djfler ; but I jiave no do^l4 that the great mass of tihe
people will approve the law as a whole, and w\\\ fully appreciate
the great relief it afibrds. They will be likely to ask our Dcm-
.ocratic friends to explain their conduct in regard to it.

Coocemii^ the management of. the public debt, our Demo-
cratic firienda have various opioioos. They have transferred to
this debt the hostility they bad tq the Union cause, in the
maintenance of whtch.it was incurred. Some of them, like the
Democrats of Fairfield County, Ohio, and lilce those of Mercer
County, and their representative, Mr. Mungen, declare openly
for the repudiation of the whole debt, principal and interest;
others, like Andrew Johnson, propose to pay the interest for a
few years longer, and then repudiate the principal. A lai^e
number propose to repudiate the interest, by printing and then
forcing upon the creditors of the government, in exchange for
their bonds, greenbacks, which bear no interest, and which, if the
Democratic doctrine be' followed, will never be redeemed. This
they propose in face of the solemn provision of the law author-
izing the bonds, that the amount of greenbacks in circulation
should never exceed $40o,cxx>,ooo. These various opinions
find the amplest illustration in their platforms, speeches, and
votes during the last three years. Like the cause of the Union
during the war, the public credit has been advanced by every
defeat of the Democratic party, and depressed by all their suc-
cesses.

On the other hand, the Republican party hold that the debt
is a sacred obligation, for the payment of which the justice,
honor, and good faith of the whole nation are pledged; that,
apart from the dishonor and wickedness of such a course, its
repudiation, in any form or degree, would bring measureless
disaster upon us and our posterity. To prevent such a calam-

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 621

ity, they have not only passed resolutions and laws denouncing
repudiation, but they have rendered repudiation impossible by
an amendment to the Constitution which enables every public
creditor to defend his rights in the courts, should repudiation
be attempted by a recreant President and Congress. It has
been, and is, the fixed opinion and policy of the Republican
party, that the honest course is the cheapest; that the best
mode of lightening the burden of the public debt is so to
improve the public credit that the debt may be refunded at a
lower rate of interest One per cent of reduction of the rate
would save the nation from twelve to thirteen millions of gold
per annum.

The election of General Grant was the signal for the immedi-
ate improvement of the public credit Since then our bonds
have steadily advanced in value, until now they are nearly worth
their face in gold. The enhancement of our credit led the
Republican party to believe that the time had arrived when the
debt could be refunded at a lower rate of interest ; and, on the
13th of July last, a bill was passed by Congress which provided
for funding one thousand millions of the debt at four per cent,
three hundred millions at four and a half per cent, and two hun-
dred millions at five per cent The law carefully guards against
all extravagance in its administration. It provides for no spe-
cial fiscal agents at home or abroad. The work of refunding is
to be carried on by the financial officers of the government.
My own fear is that four per cent is so low a rate that the bonds
will not be taken at that price. If they are, that is the best
feature of the law.

That bill passed the House by a vote of 139 ayes to 54 noes,
and the Senate by a vote of 32 ayes to 10 noes. Not one Dem-
ocratic Senator or Representative voted for it ; five Democratic
Senators and fifty-three Democratic Representatives voted
against it While they are explaining why they voted against
the great reduction of taxes, perhaps they will also be so good
as to explain why they voted solidly against the reduction of
our annual burden of interest on the public debt

Many differences of opinion exist among the members of
both parties in regard to the currency and the banks, and mul-
titudes of plans and theories were proposed at the late session
of Congress, few of which secured the general assent of either
party. But a few practical and pressing necessities of the

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870.

country, in connection with the currency, demanded the atten-il
tion of Congress. It was found that, while there was a glut of
currency in New York and the other money centres of the East,
the West and South were suffering greatly for want of currency
and banking facilities. It was easy to borrow money on call at
a low rate to carry on stock and gold gambling in Wall Street;
but Western and Southern business men found it difficult to
obtain money to carry on the great industries even at exorbi-
tant rates. A most unequal distribution of banking facilities
had been made during the war. when the South was practically
separated from the Union. It was found that, while the eleven
States cast of the Alleghanics and north of the Potomac, with a
population of less than 11.500,000. had 1,078 banks, and more
than $232,000,000 of bank circulation, the twenty-six great
States of the West and South, with a population of 30.000,000,
had less than $66,000,000 of circulation. Indeed, Massachusetts
and Connecticut alone had $10,000,000 more than all these
twentj'-six Western and Southern States put together. There
can be no defence of this injustice to these great and rapidly
developing portions of the countr>'.

Another evil connected with the currency was the fact that
the New York and other city banks of the East held in their
vaults, and were allowed to count as part of their lawful reserve,
$45,000,000 of three per cent certificates, on which they drew
interest from the government ; while all Western and country
banks were compelled to hold greenbacks as their reserve, on
which they drew no interest. Moreover, these three per cent
certificates were the most dangerous form of the public debt.
They were payable on demand, and in a time of financial
panic might be precipitated on the Treasury at once, to its
great embarrassment.

To remedy these evils, a bill was passed on the 6th of July
last, which provided for the redemption and cancellation of
the $45,000,000 of three per cent certificates, and the issuing
of $54,000,000 of bank circulation to the relatively destitute
States of the West and South. It provided also for withdraw-
ing $25,000,000 from the Eastern States having a surplus, and
distributing to the West and South the amount thus with-
drawn. To take from the existing banks their monopoly of
privileges, and to prepare for a return to specie payments, it
was provided that banking should be free to all who, also com-

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. ^ 623

plying with the other terms of the banking laws, shall redeem
their notes in coin whenever it is demanded.

This bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of
100 to ^^, Only four Democrats voted for it; forty-four voted
against it. I invite them to explain why they voted to continue
to the Eastern banks this monopoly of privilege, and to allow
the New York banks to continue to receive interest on their
reserves. Perhaps it may console these gentlemen to know that
their votes appear to have been approved by every stock gam-
bler of Wall Street, from the magnificent James Fisk, Jr. to the
humblest of the curbstone brokers.

It is not necessary to detain you with the record of the De-
mocracy in their solid opposition to the laws passed at the late
session for the enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment, for
amending the naturalization laws and preventing their violation
by fraudulent voting, and all the similar measures that so
deeply concern the success of that party in the South and in
the great cities of New York and Brooklyn.

I have now reviewed the leading measures of the late session
of Congress, on which the two parties were opposed, and I con-
fidently appeal to the people for a verdict as to the compara-
tive wisdom and patriotism exhibited by the two parties. Now,
as during the war, we see that the course of the Democracy is
reactionary and obstructive, their policy negative rather than
positive, destructive rather than conservative. Turning from
this view of the immediate past, I invite your attention to the
doctrines put forth as platforms for the present campaign by
the two parties. I do not greatly value party platforms, either
for their political wisdom or truthfulness ; but they are instruct-
ive as records of party life and tendencies.

It may be interesting to political antiquarians to observe that
the two leading paragraphs which form the preface to the Dem-
ocratic State platform of June last are copied from the resolu-
tions of the Democratic National Convention of 1840, and it is
noticeable that one of them, which speaks approvingly of the
Declaration of Independence, is brought out again, after a con-
tinued absence of more than fourteen years from the conven-
tions of the Democracy. This is, perhaps, the most encouraging
feature of their platform. During the absence of that paragraph
the Declaration of Independence was not in high favor with
these gentlemen. Perhaps its restoration indicates that they

f .■■">-'. -:,-:^"^^^'^^-

'"'^^''f^^^'T^.'^^'^'^WW

6h , j'ozjTiCMZ isscras of 1870.

will by and by admit that its doctrines and promises ^ply to all
citizens, of whatever race or color.

The first resolution of the platform denouncea the present
tariff as a gigantic robbery of the labor and industry of the coun-
tiy, and favors a low revenue tariff, which will closely approxi-
mate to free trade. On the tariff question, neither of the great
political parties is united. Opinions vary all the way from free
trade to prohibition. It is also manifest that the question has
assumed a local rather than a national aspect. Doubtless th«|
majori^of Democrats arc free-traders, but ail the Democratic 3
members of Congress from Pennsylvania save one abjure freei
trade and &vor high protection for protection's sake. Republi- 1
cans of the Northwest, and in tlie agricultural districts generallyj
favor a conuderable reduction of the present duties, and somcj
are avowed free-traders. Other Republicans, like the Dema>J
crats of Feonsylvania, favor the highest rates of protection forJ
protection's sake. ~

Now, before discussing this topic fiirUier, 1 desire to oiake a
statement which will not be disputed. It is this. For tiie pres-
ent, we must annually raise by taxation, for the payment of
interest on our public debt, about $i30,ocx),ooo in gold. Our
expenditures for the diplomatic and consular service, and our
payments to Indian tribes, must also be in gold. No prudent
man, therefore, will say that we can safely reduce our gold rev-
enues below $150,000,000. Our only source of gold income is
tariff duties, which have produced an average of $175,000,000
per annum during the last five years. By the law of July last,
tariff duties on the necessaries of life have been removed so as
to reduce the annual receipts to $150,000,000. Now, will these
Democratic statesmen tell us how much lower they intend to
reduce our gold receipts? They declare for a "low revenue
tariff." Shall it be low at all hazards, without regard to the
necessities of the government? Before the late reduction, the
receipts did not average twenty per cent more than is actually
needed to meet the gold obligations of the government. But,
both before and after the reduction, they denounce the tariff as
" a gigantic robbery." I beg them to inform us how great a
reduction will be needed to transform this *' robbery " into the
"low revenue tariff" which they promise, and to how low a
point they propose to push the gold revenues of the govern-
ment. They have given us but one indication as to their mode

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 625

of reduction. They demand that all the necessaries of life shall
be ** absolutely free of duty." Will these gentlemen tell us what
articles they include among "the necessaries of life"? Do
they include tea, and coffee, and sugar? Certainly not; for they
voted almost unanimously against a reduction of $20,500,000
on these articles at the late session. Do they include boots and
shoes, coal and manufactures of iron and steel, cotton and wool?
Certainly not; for during the long period of Democratic rule,
before the war, when the necessity for revenue was vastly less
than it now is, the duty which they imposed on these articles
averaged about thirty per cent ad valorem. That was the ex-
act rate under the tariff of 1846. Do they include beef, pork,
fish, salt, butter and cheese, potatoes and oats, wheat and flour,
and breadstuffs generally, among the necessaries of life? Surely
not ; for in the same tariff the rate on none of these articles was
less than twenty per cent. What, then, are these ** necessaries
of life " which they will make " absolutely free of duty " ? The
fact is, there never was in this country such a tariff as they pro-
pose ; and in our present condition there never can be, if we
mean to pay our debts and support the government. This
utterance of the Democratic party is " full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing." It is a vulgar appeal to prejudice and pas-
sion, devoid alike of patriotism and sense.

The resolution of the Republican State Convention on the
tariff is manifestly a compromise between two extremes of opin-
ion, and is probably not altogether satisfactory to either. It
recognizes as the basis of the tariff the necessity of revenue, —
demands that its details shall be so adjusted as to work the least
hardship to industry in every form, and to secure to every class
of producers, not a monopoly, but a fair competition with for-
eign producers. This appears to me both just and wise. Any
extreme on this subject will bring upon our producers the worst
evil that can befall them, which is sudden and violent change
and constant uncertainty. Place the rate so high as to be nearly
or quite prohibitory, and a popular reaction will set in and
reduce it so low as to disorganize, if not destroy, enterprises of
immense value. This has been the sad history of much of our
tariff legislation for the last fifty years. Two counties in the
district which I have the honor to represent, dig one fifth of all
the coal and make three eighths of all the iron produced in the

State of Ohio, A very high rate of duty would no doubt be
v6l. I. 40

626 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870.

acceptable to those engaged in these industries. But it is my
clear conviction that a moderate duty steadily maintained is far
more valuable to them than the dangerous fluctuations which
will result from an unsteady policy. Organized as American
industry now is, our producers should not, on the one hand, be
subjected to the unrestrained competition of all foreigners; nor
should they, on the other, look to the government to make all
their enterprises profitable. In the divided state of opinions in
Congress, the details of the tarift', in many respects, were not
satisfactorily adjusted. For instance, the present duty on coal
and salt, both prime necessaries of life, should have been in-
cluded among the reductions.

The Democratic Convention also denounces the internal rev-
enue system as unendurable in its oppressive exactions, and
demands the immediate repeal of the stamp and license taxes,
and the taxes on sales and incomes. These very taxes were
abolished by the law of July 13, though forty-seven Democrats
in the House of Representatives voted against the repeal. Let
this resolution and this vote go to the country together. But
they propose, in their platform, a new mode of managing the
internal revenue. They say this ta.K should be collected by
State and county officials. And this doctrine is put forth by
that party which has so long been preaching a crusade against
centralization and usurpation of power by the general govern-
ment! The rights of "independent, sovereign States" have
been one of the dearest dogmas of the party; and now they
propose to place both State and county officers under the com-
mand of a Federal officer, appointed by the President! If this
be not consolidation of power in the hands of the national ad-
ministration, tell me what it is. The proposition is too absurd
to be debated.

The Democratic Convention also demands the immediate ab-
olition of the national banks, and the issue of treasury notes in
place of the $300,000,000 of national bank notes now outstand-
ing. Let us consider this reckless proposition. Do the Democ-
racy mean that there shall be no banks in this country? that the
United States shall be the only modern nation in which there
are no institutions of credit, whose soundness is in some legal
manner guaranteed to the people? Or, will they remand us to
the wretched system of State banks from which the National
Currency Act so happily relieved us? If this be their purpose.

1

I

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 627

the scheme will find no favor among the millions of our people
who suffered untold losses under the old system, but who have
never lost a dollar by the failure of a national bank. So far as
can be learned from its terms, the resolution proposes no substi-
tute for the national banks or their circulation except a direct
issue from the treasury of $300,000,000 of greenbacks. The
Democrats will not only withdraw the circulation, but abolish
the banks also. This proppsition exhibits the blindest ignorance
of the whole subject of money and credit as related to busi-
ness. By far the largest proportion of all the exchanges in this
country — the purchases and sales — are effected, not by the
use of paper or metallic currency, but by checks, drafts, bills of
exchange, and other forms of bank credit. It has been ascer-
tained that fully ninety-five per cent of all the vast commercial
and business transactions of England are carried on by these
agencies, and only five per cent by the actual use of money.
The business of the New York clearing-house during the year
1869 amounted to more than thirty-seven billions, but only a
little more than one billion of money was actually used in doing
it. The bank is the modern institution employed by all civilized
nations to facilitate the operations of trade and to economize
the use of money. It can no more be dispensed with than the
railroad or telegraph.

In case this policy were adopted, and the sixteen hundred
banks which now afford facilities for credit, deposit, and dis-
count throughout the country were abolished, and the Treas-
ury issued greenbacks in place of the bank notes cancelled,
to whom would they be issued? To the creditors of the gov-
ernment, to the holders of bonds in the great money centres,
thus increasing the glut of money in the cities and the strin-
gency in the country, and abandoning all those who need
credit in the transaction of business to the tender mercies of
private brokers and money-lenders. The issue of greenbacks
would utterly fail to meet the necessities of business, which re-
quires credit as well as currency.

There are still graver difficulties in the way. Under the late
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States,^ not one
dollar of the new greenbacks would be legal tender for any
debt existing at the time of their issue. Indeed, the plain in-
ference to be drawn from the opinion of the court is, that the

^ Hepburn v. Griswold See ante^ p. 565, note.

628 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870.

whole issue would be declared unconstitutional. Treasury notes
were made a legal tender only as a measure of overwhelming
necessity to meet the demands of the war. Even those judges
who dissented from the opinion of the court defended the issue
of the legal-tender notes only as a war measure. And yet the
Democracy propose to plunge the country into all the legal dif-
ficulties which are sure to arise out of a new issue !

The proposed issue would so depreciate the value of the
greenbacks now outstanding as greatly to derange business and
indefinitely postpone the return to specie payments. As the
banks are now organized, the chief strain, when resumption
takes place, will fall upon them. They are required to redeem
their own notes in greenbacks, and must therefore march abreast
of the government in the approach to specie values. The De-
mocracy propose to abolish the banks immediately, and leave
the government to carry the burden alone.

The expense of such a step is also worthy of consideration.
Some people seem to think that the abolition of the banks
would abolish or cancel the $39O,ocx),00O of bonds on which they
are based, or would at least cancel the interest on the bonds.
This is, of course, a mistake. The stockholders of the banks
own the bonds, and they would still own them and draw interest
on them, the same after the abolition of the banks as before.

The Constitution does not permit the State and local author-
ities to tax the bonds as such, nor is the principal of the bonds
taxed by Congress. But the $390,000,000 of bonds that con-
stitutes bank capital is taxed by the States in the form of bank
stock, and Congress taxes the banks directly in many ways.
During the year 1869 the banks paid taxes as follows: —

To the United States J 10,029,982

To the several States 8,972,711

Making a total tax of ^19,002,693

Or four and a half per cent on their capital. This $19,000,000
of revenue would be wholly lost to the nation and to the States
by the abolition of the banks.

Rut, fellow-citizens, this topic is too important to be dismissed
without examination in still another direction. If the immediate
repeal of the National Banking Law caused no revulsion in the
business of the country; if there were no loss of taxes by it; if
there were no constitutional objection to an additional issue of

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 629

$3CX),ooo,ooo of legal-tender notes, and no violation of plighted
faith in it, — I should still insist that this proposal of the Democ-
racy is most unwise, and that its adoption would be extremely
dangerous. It would be unwise, because a currency of treasury
notes has no power to adapt itself to the wants of trade, which
vary from year to year, and from month to month in the same
year. An amount of currency amply sufficient for the winter
and spring might be wholly insufficient for moving the fall
crops. Any fixed amount might be insufficient at one time,
and redundant at another. On the contrary, the currency and
credits afforded by the national banks are regulated by the
wants of trade, and increase or diminish in amount according
to the fluctuations of business. The adoption of the Democratic
programme would be dangerous in the highest degree, because
of the great temptation it would offer to Congress and the Presi-
dent to increase the volume of currency in place of levying taxes.
Suppose that, just on the eve of an important election, an admin-
istration finds a large deficiency of revenue, and that to meet the
wants of the treasury new taxes must be levied. Will they be
likely to resist the temptation to print a few millions more of
Treasury notes to tide over the election? Who does not see that
this policy would place the whole business of the country, the
value of all contracts, the cost of living, and the wages of labor,
at the mercy of a partisan vote of Congress? For myself, I
dare not trust the great industrial interests of the country to
such uncertain chances.

I conclude the discussion of this topic with the expression of
my confident belief that the people will maintain the national
banking system as the best and safest they have ever had. Its
establishment is an honor to the Republican party, and a great
blessing to the nation.

Both the Republican and Democratic conventions united in
denouncing grants of land to corporations and monopolies. If
these resolutions refer to the immense number of schemes to
aid local railroad and other corporations which have been
crowded upon Congress during the past two years, they are
wise and opportune. Scores of such bills were introduced at
the last session, though very few of them were passed, if any.
It is well for the people to warn their representatives against
the mass of such bills which are now pending in Congress.
For myself, I never introduced nor voted for such a bill. But

630 POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870.

if these resolutions are intended to condemn the legislation
which lias given iand to aid in the construction of the great
continental railway between the Atlantic and the Pacific, they
arc not, in my judgment, either wise or opportune. The open-
ing up to settlement and civilization of the vast wilderness on
both slopes of the Rocky Mountains was nearly or quite impos-
sible without these great roads. Within the last fifteen years,
botii the political parties, in their national conventions, have
recommended the building of a Pacific railroad. More than
ten years ago, William H. Seward made a speech on the pas-
sage of the first Pacific railroad bill through the Senate, in
which occurred this striking and suggestive passage: —

" I want it to be known, I want it to lie seen and read of all men here
ajid elsewhere, that, at the very day and hour when it was apprehended
by patriotic and wise men tliroughout the land that this Union was fall-
ing into ruin, tlie Congress of the United States placed upon the suiute-
books, for eternal record, an act appropriating ninety -six millions —
the largest appropriation ever made — to bind the Nortlieast and ihc
Northwest and the Southwest, the East and the West, and the North
and the South, by a physical, nialecial bond of indissoluble union."

The bill to aid in the construction of the Union Pacific Rail-
road became a law in 1862; in 1864, the bill to aid, by a grant
of lands, the building of the Northern Pacific road was passed.
Both political parties were divided in regard to these bills; but
the completion of one of the roads has. fully vindicated the
wisdom of the legislation.

The most important law passed at the late session of Con-
gress relating to grants of land was an act amendatory of the
law of 1864 in regard to the Northern Pacific road. It allows
the company to issue their own bonds, and mortgage the lands
already given to them; but it enlarges the grant very little, if
any. On the passage of this amendatory act both parties were
divided, as they were in 1862 and 1864. I have stated these
details for the reason that attempts have been made to repre-
sent that, at the last session, large grants of land were recklessly
made to railroad corporations.

The remaining resolutions of the Democratic platform —
concerning the taxation of the bonds, the enforcement of the
Fifteenth Amendment, hostility to Great Britain and Spain,
praising the conduct of Democratic Congressmen, etc. — are
but the stuffing and padding which have become so cheap and

POLITICAL ISSUES OF 1870. 631

so common in such conventions, but which influence the popu-
lar mind far less than politicians suppose.

In reviewing the ground gone over, there appears to run
through the career of the Democratic party, both before, dur-
ing, and since the war, a malignant consistency in opposing
everything done or attempted by the Republican party. They
were unwilling to have the Union saved, if it was to be done
under the lead of the Republican party. They denounced us
for- keeping the Southern States out so long, but opposed
reconstruction, apparently because Republicans proposed it. In
all their efforts, they seem to be moved by their hates rather
than their loves. This makes them a party of negations, of de-
struction and revolution. All the substantial measures which
they have recommended in their platforms are reactionary and
violent All the ddbris of the Rebellion has fallen into their
party. The shattered hopes and broken purposes of the Rebels
have added bitterness to the Democratic spirit, and they seem
almost wholly destitute of both sweetness and light, those
heaven-born qualities which a great writer has described as the
two angels of civilization.

I know of no political party in modern times whose record is
so high and noble as the Republican party's, — of no party that
has so little of which to be ashamed, and so much of which to be
proud. Its faith and courage since the war, in meeting and con-
quering prejudice and passion, in acting firmly on the conviction
that nothing is settled until it is settled right, have been even
more admirable than its faith and patience and valor during the
war. The upheaving of the Rebellion brought to the surface
of political life some bad elements, which have begun to show
themselves in political organizations. Some corrupt men have
found their way into the Republican party, and some mistakes
have been made ; but the head and heart of the great party are
sound and true, and it is still not unworthy of its noble record.

'"'^

AMERICAN AGRICULTURE.

, ADDRESS DBUVBRED AT TRS NORTHERN OHIO PAdC'
I CLEVELAND. OHIO,

MR. PRESIDENT,— We are here among the dements
and forces out of which are developed the prosperity,
strength, and glory of a nation. It is not in mighty armies,
great navies, magnificent cities, nor indeed in any great aggre-
gation of wealth or splendor, that we see the real strength of
nations. It is rather in the mines, and shops, and farms, where
all tliesc displays of power have their origin.

When the great steamship is struggling with the tempest far
out at sea, the wise man does not look at her trim decks nor
her gilded cabins to determine whether she can outride the
storm. He goes down into the hold, examines her ponderous
engines, her stock of fuel, the strength of her great ribs, the
soundness of her timbers, the thought, courage, and discipline
of her crew ; and if all these be in good order, he treads the
deck in confidence and laughs at the storm, for he knows that a
skilful pilot can take her precious cargo of human life safe into
port. Jupiter, seated among the gods of Olympus, could not
have hurled his red lightnings and shaken the world, had not
Vulcan, in his black forges of the Cyclops, fashioned the thun-
derbolt out of the rough elements of the earth. I look around
through these beautiful grounds, crowded with so many thou-
sands of people and filled with such a variety of products, and
say again, these are the elements, these the forces, which alone
can be moulded into national wealth, power, and glory,

I know of no more fitting theme to discuss to-day than
Agriculture, and its relation to National Prosperity. And first
I inquire. What is national prosperity, and what are the condi-
tions upon which it rests?

AMERICAN AGRICULTURE. 633

It took two hundred years to explode one most fatal error, —
the theory known as the mercantile system, which is founded on
the doctrine that gold and silver are the only wealth, and that all
industry must be so managed as to bring more into a coun-
try than is taken out This theory made England a nation of
shopkeepers, created her colonial system, lost her her Ameri-
can colonies, ruined and reduced her country population by an
unequal distribution of wealth. It founded great commercial
corporations, and piled up vast wealth in the hands of the few,
while the great body of the people were impoverished and im-
bruted. It led to that condition which a poet has described in
the line, —

" A nation lies starving on heaps of gold.*'

It led Goldsmith to write that beautiful poem, "The Deserted Vil-
lage," the substance of which is expressed in a single couplet, —

** 111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.

>f

About the time of our Revolution, the mercantile system was
exploded, and the nobler idea was reached, that wealth em-
braces every product of labor which ministers to the wants or
comforts of man and has exchangeable value. National pros-
perity is a condition wherein the muscle and brain of every citi-
zen have the freest play, and lay hold of all elements of nature
and fit them for the use of man.

Wherever a blade of grass, a sheaf of wheat, a shock of
corn, is produced ; wherever an ore is dug from the earth, or a
useful implement or machine is fashioned ; wherever any pro-
duct, by change of form or by transformation, is better fitted
or becomes more accessible to the use of man, — there is na-
tional wealth, — there a step has been taken in the direction of
national prosperity. To achieve this requires the harmonious
co-operation of agriculture, manufactures, mining, commerce,
and all forms of industry, which are not enemies, but friends.

To realize this idea of national prosperity, two great forces
must be brought into harmonious action. These are the people
and the territory, — the body and the soul of the nation. This
relation is not fanciful but real. Who shall trace the manifold
influence on the national character of the soil, the climate, the
mountains, rivers, lakes, and the various aspects of nature?
Humboldt and Ritter call these the great organic forces of civ-

634- AMERICAN AGRICULTURE.

ilization. The law of greatness here, as in the individual maji,
15 a sound mind in a sound body.

And now of what kind is tiie body of this repubhc, — this
land of ours? Let us study its character. Our national do-
main is a vast irregular triangle, washed by two historic oceans,
and fringed by the greatest chain of lakes on tlic globe. I said
it is washed by two historic oceans. The sea, the ocean, and its
shores, has always been the scene of civilization, The Medi-
terranean Sea was the first great theatre of human progress.
Around it were grouped Greece, Rome, Carthage, and other
states of antiquity. When these decayed, modern nations made
the Atlantic and its shores the scene of their triumphs, and it is
the scene of their triumphs to-day. But the course of empire
is still taking its way westward, and this new republic is now
reaching toward the ancient cradle of the race. When the circle
is complete, the Pacific will be the theatre of civilization. Our
domain is, therefore, washed by the ocean of the present and tlie
greater ocean of the future ; and this last we shall command.

But let us look within this great domain. By what a won-
derful arrangement is it watered and redeemed from desert!
The surrounding seas and lakes, the currents of ocean and air,
the great chains of mountains, placed as refrigerators to con-
dense and equalize the rainfall, and the vast river systems which
drain and adorn it, all indicate the grandeur of conception and
perfection of design which could originate only with Him who
holds the oceans in the hollow of His hands, and weighs the
hills in a balance.

Exclusive of Alaska, this national domain covers three and a
quarter milHon square miles, one twelfth of which is river and
lake, and eleven twelfths land fit for human habitation. And
where on the earth will you find such a vast range and vari-
ety of climate and soil? Trace the course of the Mississippi
River. At its source in Minnesota the mean yearly temperature
is forty degrees, while at its mouth the average is seventy-
two degrees. Along its banks grow the oak, the beech, the
sycamore, the willow, the bay, the cypress, the magnolia, the
palmetto ; and it reaches the sea among the orange groves that
line the shores of the Gulf.

Who has fathomed the depths or measured the variety and
richness of our mines? Take the article of coal alone, on the
supply of which the greatness — I had almost said the life —

I

AMERICAN AGRICULTURE. 635

of modern nations depends. Belgium has 518 square miles of
coal; France, 1,718; Spain, 3,400; Great Britain, 12,000; while
the coal fields of the United States cover over 200,000 square
miles of our territory.

Consider our magnificent waters and railways. Exclusive of
Alaska, we have 37,000 miles of sea and lake coast, and 85,000
miles of navigable rivers, making 122,000 miles of navigable
waters. Then we have over 40,000 miles of railroad, and hun-
dreds of thousands of miles of telegraph line, which are the
nerves running along the vast muscles of this gigantic body.

There is one characteristic of this domain more striking than
any other. The decree is written all over it, in signs and letters
which cannot be misunderstood, that it was made to be the
home of one people. Its unity is proclaimed by every plain
and re-echoed from every mountain, and the decree is borne
along with the restless sweep of its great rivers. Who shall
estimate the influence of the Mississippi River on our national
policy and destiny? When the French, in 1800, obtained from
the Spaniards the territory of Louisiana, President Jefferson
wrote to our Minister at Paris these remarkable words: —

" There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our
natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans, through which the pro-
duce of three eighths of our territory must pass to market, and from its
fertility it will erelong yield more than half of our whole produce, and
contain more than half our inhabitants. France, placing herself in that

door, assumes to us the attitude of defiamce The occlusion of

the Mississippi is a state of things in which we cannot exist Our

circumstances are so imperious as to admit of no delay as to our course ;
and the use of the Mississippi so indispensable, that we cannot hesitate
one moment to hazard our existence for its maintenance." ^

The great Napoleon said, when he signed the treaty that gave
us Louisiana, ** This accession strengthens forever the power of
the United States, and I have just given tb England a maritime
rival that will sooner or later humble her pride." Who shall
say how great a power in saving the Union was the great lesson
of unity taught by the Mississippi River to those who dwell
upon its banks and the banks of its tributaries ?

Such is the vast and wonderful territory, the body of the re-
public, whose living soul, whose inspiring life, is the forty mil-
lions of free people that inhabit and adorn it. To make this

1 Jefferson's Works, Vol. IV. pp. 432, 457.

636 AMERICAN AGRICULTURE.

soul large and luminous and pure, and this body its beautiful
and fitting abode, is national prosperity, is national greatness, is
the highest glory to which human society has aspired. This
great result can be achieved only by such institutions and laws
as allow the fullest and freest play of every muscle and brain
upon all the forces and elements within our national domain.
We must make labor honorable, the laborer free and intelligent,
and the fruit of his toil must be made safe and secure under
wise and stable laws.

And what is this American population doing? How is labor
distributed among the various industries?

Unfortunately, our statistics are meagre and unsatisfactory,
and it will be cause of regret throughout the world that the
census now being taken is not a greater improvement on that
of i860. The statistics of other countries throw some light
upon the general question of the distribution of labor. By the
French census of 1862, it appears that, out of the 38,000,000 of
inhabitants of France, 20,000,000, or five ninths of the whole,
are engaged in agriculture. Even in Great Britain, a country
of small area, dense in population, and renowned for her com-
merce and manufactures, one third of the population are en-
gaged in tilling the soil. The best attainable data show that
three quarters of the people of the United States are engaged
in agriculture. To know the condition of agriculture and the
people engaged in it is, therefore, to know the situation and
tendencies of three fourths of the nation. And now what has
this nation been doing in regard to agriculture since the set-
tlement of its territory began?

The wealth that had been brought into this country, and pro-
duced in it up to i860, is estimated at $14,183,000,000, exclusive
of the value of slaves, of which $8,004,000,000, or four sevenths
of the whole, was agricultural wealth, thus distributed : —

Value of farms % 6,650,000,000

Farm animals 1,107,000,000

Agricultural implements 247,000,000

Total S 8,004,000,000

In other words, place in one scale the wealth of all our cities,
shipping, railways, telegraphs, mines, manufactories, and our
agricultural wealth placed in the other outweighed them as
four to three.

AMERICAN AGRICULTURE. 637

The great destruction of property, North and South, during
the recent war, the unusual consumption of products of indus-
try, the loss of labor and its diversion into unproductive chan-
nels, have been estimated at $9,ooo,cxx>,cxx> ; but, even with this
fearful drawback, it is calculated that the national wealth has so
increased that it now amounts to $24,cxxD,cxx),ooo, of which
agricultural wealth constitutes much more than half. Though
this volume and distribution of capital are interesting and im-
portant, it is far more important to know what the labor of the
nation is achieving year by year.

The latest estimate shows that the labor of the nation is annu-
ally producing $6,625,ooo,cxx>, of which amount $3,283,cxx),cxxD,
nearly one half, is the direct raw products of our farms. The
value of farm products is not only immeasurably greater than
any other class of our products, but is nearly equal to all others
combined. According to the report of the Department of Agri-
culture for 1868, the ten leading crops of that year, vegetable
products of the farm, were valued at nearly $i,9CX),ooo,cxX).
In this list cotton is not king; corn, hay, and wheat are each
more valuable.

Consider, also, the part that agriculture plays in our for-
eign trade. The official report for the year ending June 30,
1870, shows that the aggregate value of our exports during the
year, exclusive of gold and silver, was $436,oco,cxxD, of which
$349,ooo,cxx>, or over 80 per cent, was the products of the farm.
Indeed, our part in the work of feeding the world was never
more strikingly exhibited than in a report of the Commissioner
of the Universal Exposition at Paris, in 1867, in which it was
shown that the annual cereal product of sixteen kingdoms of
Europe was sixteen bushels per head of the population, while
the annual cereal product of the United States was over thirty-
eight bushels per head. The leading kingdoms of Western
Europe are gradually coming into the list of those that must
be permanently fed from abroad. In the work of feeding the
world, Russia is now our only formidable rival.

The foregoing facts show the relation which agriculture sus-
tains to our national strength.

Grecian mythology tells of Antaeus, a mighty giant and
wrestler, son of earth and sea, who was invincible so long as he
remained in contact with his mother earth. Hercules, finding
the secret of his strength, lifted him into the air, and crushed

638 AMERICAN AGRICULTURE.

him to death. The great secret of our national strengh is ia
our agricultural wealth, born of earth and moisture. Lift the
giant from the earth, and he ia powerless; cripple our hus-
bandry, and al! other industries will languish, and the nation
will limp and stagger in its march, like a wounded giant.

Farmers, 1 have not said these things merely to praise agri-
culture, nor to flatter those engaged in it. I have not sinned
against the rule which Mr. Greeley lately laid down for occa-
sions like this. I have only been trying to measure the interest
which you represent Its magnitude is stupendous, and the
results you have hitlicrto achieved are wonderful. Will they
continue and increase? This is the greatest question that can
be asked or answered in regard to your work. In its discussion
I may not give you much aid, — I have not sufficient knowledge
for that ; but I promise I will at least give you trouble, and such
trouble as may lead you to seek and find a way out of it.

1 do not fear being called an alarmist when I say that a most
serious crisis is close at hand in the agricultural life and pros- J
pcrity of the country. Some elements which have greatly j
aided both in the past arc now about to disappear. "

First, The vegetable mould, the rich gift of unnumbered
centuries, is nearly exhausted. You have drawn on that bank
till your credit is gone. The earth will no longer honor your
drafts till you increase your deposits. The wheat centre, for
example, is rapidly travelling weshvard. In i860, the six New
England States produced but eleven quarts of wheat per head,

— enough to feed her people three weeks; New York, enough
to feed her people six months; Pennsylvania, no surplus. From
1850 to i860, in the five Middle States, the average product
per acre decreased more than thirty per cent. Ohio now pro-
duces less than eleven and a half bushels per acre.

Second, Fertile lands have become very expensive, and
twenty times more capital is needed now than was needed fifty
years ago, to carry on the business of farming.

Third. There is a wide-spread spirit of speculation engen-
dered by the war and its financial effects.

As a result of these and other causes, the agricultural popu-
lation of the country is being divided into two distinct classes,

— capitalists and laborers, owners of land and workers of land.
The character of the business is so changed that the brightest
and most ambitious of farmers' sons are rapidly leaving it for

AMERICAN AGRICULTURE. 639

other and more attractive pursuits. For many years the ten-
dency of population has been from the country to the city ; but
recently this tendency has rapidly increased. It began sooner
in the Old World than here, and has been the theme of much
discussion there. It is said that three fifths of the population
of London over twenty years of age were born in the country.
Alison, the historian, says that cities are the grave of the human
race, the country its cradle. He shows that in the agricul-
tural districts of England the rate of annual mortality is eigh-
teen to one thousand of the population, while in the cities it is
forty-two to one thousand.

As the census returns come in, we see how greatly the growth
of our cities is overshadowing that of the country. There is an
actual falling off of population in most of the agricultural dis-
tricts. In the twenty-three cities of Massachusetts that have
more than ten thousand population each, the increase has been
over forty per cent during the last decade ; while in the rest of
the State there has been a heavy decrease. This means that
small farms are being consolidated into larger ones, and the hum-
ble homes of late land-owners have become the abodes of ten-
ants or the stables of the more fortunate farmers. This process
has gone on in England until one hundred and fifty men own
half the soil. How far will it go on here ?

But I have not stated the most serious matter yet. This has
been stated broadly and strongly in one of the most thoughtful
journals of this country; and, though I do not indorse it in all
respects, I will read a portion of the article. I read from the
Nation of July 15, 1869: —

" Probably the most puzzling phenomenon of the day to the sociolo-
gist is the growing tendency of the present generation of native Ameri-
cans to abandon the country and crowd into tlie towns, to engage in
trade and manufactures. The newspapers and poets are all busy paint-
ing the delights of the agricultural life ; but the farmer, though he reads
their articles and poems, quits the farm as soon as he can find any other
way of making a livelihood ; and if he does not, his son does

"The European farmer and his wife, who do their own work, are
peasants ; that is, persons without knowledge, or ambition, or tastes, with
few desires above those of the ox in their plough. The European farm-
er's wife has no social aspirations, no silk dresses, no piano, no monthly
magazine, and no dreams or hopes of genteel existence. She is a robust
animal, who handles her pots and pans, and bends over her washtub with

1

640 AMERICAN AGRICULTUnB.

thorough enjoyment of her work, and without a suspicion thai she b
cajialile of ajiytbing higher or better.

" The problem which the native American farmer is trying to solve,
liowever, is one which has never before been attempted ; namely, the
infusion into tbe agricultural calling of a degree of culture and n;fine-
roent hilherto only witnessed in towns amongst any class, and never
witnessed amongst our farming population at all. In fact, he \& trying
to live, while laboring with his hands, as only superintendents of labor
live in other countries. To say that the attempt is succeeding, or seems
likely to succeeii, would be lo fty in tbe face of all the facts. There
rises from every farmhouse, or at least from the women of it, a wail of
discontent, — a story of shattered nerves, worn-out muscles, lonely, jo)--
less lives, which are maile only the more unbearable by the glimpses
which the literature of the day gives of llie ease, polish, and excitement
of city life, and he is a lucky farmer who gets his children lo follow his
calling one minute longer than they can help it." '

This grave allegation has been before the reading public
more than a year. I have waited in vain for some answer to
show that the case is wholly misrepresented, or at least greatly
overstated. But I have met no denial or explanation. Mr.
Greeley is the devoted friend and champion of agriculture, yet
his recent chapters on farming are pastoral lamentations rather
than eulogies. The substance of this grave declaration is, that
thoughtful men begin to fear that the American experiment
of making the farmer's home the abode of industrious, en-
lightened, successful, and happy citizens is likely to prove a
failure; that, to make the experiment successful, there must
be a class of mere farm laborers, who are to have no aspirations,
no ambition, no education, no culture; and that only by the
aid of these can the farmer reach the ideal at which our fathers
aimed. Is this so? I do not assert it. I do not yet believe
it. But it has been broadly asserted, and not yet positively
and authoritatively denied. If it be true, the consequence
will be appalling. The editor of a leading British magazine
told me, not long since, that English mechanics had often made
a fortune, but he had never known a mere farm laborer in Eng-
land to rise above his class.

I told you, fellow- citizens, that I would raise questions to
trouble you, and that I could not give you a full solution of
them. I will endeavor, however, to point out some of the paths
which, I believe, will lead to the solution.

> The Nation, Vol. IX. p. 45.

AMERICAN AGRICULTURE. 641

First, you must take Nature into your counsels, and make
her your ally. The mysterious power that she has placed
in seeds makes it possible for you to choose them so wisely,
that from one you can, with the same labor, produce twice as
much as you can from another. Make this power your servant.
Explore the mysteries of soil, moisture, and sunshine, and make
them your slaves. The egg of a frog and the egg of a fish may
be so alike that neither chemistry nor the microscope can detect
any difference ; yet from the one comes a frog and from the
other a fish. Through the whole animal kingdom this mystery
runs. You are not wise in feeding a stunted heifer, when the
same food would give you the rich and abundant product of
an Alderney cow.

Again, the power of mechanics may be made your willing
and efficient slave. Where by any contrivance the muscle of
the brute or the force of steam can be made to serve you, you
may pass up from the position of servant to that of com-
mander. Let the brain take its full share in the work. Watch
the next census, to see to what extent the use of machines
has increased since i860, and you will have a good index of
the progress made in ten years in the solution of this great
problem.

Once more, the diffusion of special knowledge .on these sub-
jects is of the utmost importance. The agricultural colleges
will do a great work in this respect. But will their students
stay on the farms? I doubt it. You must bring culture and
special knowledge into the farmer's house and into his fields.
For this purpose, such an exhibition as we see here to-day is of
the greatest importance. This is a great school of actual, prac-
tical results, and every farmer here to-day is both a teacher
and a student.

Permit me to say, in conclusion, that there are three forces
that must be brought to bear in the settlement of this problem,
— the home, the school, and the church, — and they are our
trinity of saving influences. Among all the American pro-
ducts which I saw at the great Paris Exposition in 1867, none
so stirred my pride as an American as the farmer's home and
the schoolhouse, which some thoughtful citizen of the United
States had erected on the Exposition grounds. To the Euro-
pean laborer we were able to say : " Go to America, and we will
give you one hundred and sixty acres of land. You can build

VOL. I. 41

642 AMERICAN AGRICULTURE.

on it such a house as this for eight hundred dollars, and there
will be erected near it, at the public expense, such a school-
house as that, where your children may be educated without
cost to you. except in the taxes you pay." That spectacle
preached a louder sermon than the guns of Gravelotte or
Sedan.

Make the farmer's home the abode of industry and thrift,
such as farm labor can make it ; of intelligence and culture, such
as our schools and public press can make it; and of purity
and truth, such as a broad and unsectarian religion can make
it; — and you will have solved the questions that I have raised.

And now a word to the young men who may hear mo. Get
intelligence, culture, and conscience; and then get ground to
stand on, ground of your own, and hire out to yourself. Be
your own master and pay yourself the wages you earn, and put
the profits of your labor into your own pocket. Do not for-
ever be commanded. Command something, if it be only a
horse and dray. Be assured that in your own brain and arm
lie your fortune and fame. Look to yourself for resources, and
whatever you do, let it be only in the last extremity that you
go to Washington after a clerkship.

GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS:

HIS UFE AND CHARACTER.

ORATION DELIVERED BEFORE THE SOCIETY OF THE ARMY
OF THE CUMBERLAND AT THE FOURTH ANNUAL REUNION,
CLEVELAND, November 25. 187a

COMRADES OF THE Army of the Cumberland, — In
obedience to your order, I rise to discharge, as best I
may, the most honorable and the most difficult duty which it
was possible for you to assign me. You have required me to
exhibit, in fitting terms, the character and career of George H.
Thomas. I approach the theme with the deepest reverence,
but with the painful consciousness of my inability to do it even
approximate justice.

There are now living not less than two hundred thousand
men who served under the eye of General Thomas ; who saw
him in sunshine and storm, — on the march, in the fight, and
on the field when the victory had been won. Enshrined in the
hearts of all these are enduring images and most precious mem-
ories of their commander and friend. Who shall collect and
unite into one worthy picture the bold outlines, the innumerable
lights and shadows, which make up the life and character of
our great leader? Who shall condense into a single hour, the
record of a life which forms so large a chapter of the nation's
history, and whose fame fills and overfills a hemisphere ? No
line can be omitted, no false stroke made, no imperfect sketch-
ing done, which you, his soldiers, will not instantly detect and
deplore. I know that each of you here present sees him in
memory, at this moment, as we often saw him in life, erect and
strong, like a tower of solid masonry ; his broad, square shoul-
ders and massive head; his abundant hair and full beard of
light brown, sprinkled with silver; his broad forehead, full face,

^

644 GEN. GEOJiGE If. THOMAS.

and features that would appear colossal, but for their perfect
harmony of proportion ; his clear complexion, with Just enough
color to assure you of robust health and a well-regulated life ; his
face lighted up by an eye which was cold gray to his enemies,
but warm, deep blue to his friends; not a man of iron, but of
live oak. His attitude, form, and features all assured you of in-
flexible firmness, of inexpugnable strength; while his welcom-
ing smile set every feature aglow with a kindness that won your
manliest affection. If thus in memory you see his form and
features, even more vividly do you remember the qualities of his
mind and heart. His body was the fitting type of his intellect
and character ; and you saw both his intellect and character
tried, again and again, in the fiery furnace of war, and by other
tests not less searching. Thus, comrades, you see him ; and
your memories supply a thousand details which complete and
adorn the picture. I beg you, therefore, to supply the defi-
ciency of my work from these living prototypes in your own
hearts.

No human life can be measured by an absolute standard. In
this world all is relative. Character itself is the result of innu-
merable influences, from wirhoui and from wiihin, which act
unceasingly through life. Who shall estimate the effect of those
latent forces enfolded in the spirit of a new-born child, — forces
that may date back centuries and find their origin in the life,
and thought, and deeds of remote ancestors, — forces, the germs
of which, enveloped in the awful mystery of life, have been
transmitted silently from generation to generation, and never
perish! All-cherishing Nature, provident and unforgetting,
gathers up all these fragments, that nothing may be lost, but
that a!) may ultimately reappear in new combinations. Each
new life is thus " the heir of all the ages," the possessor of qual-
ities which only the events of life can unfold. The problems to
be solved in the study of human life and character are therefore
these: — Given the character of a man, and the conditions of life
around him, what will be his career? Or, given his career and
surroundings, what was his character? Or, given his character
and career, of what kind were his surroundings? The relation.
of these three factors to each other is severely logical. From
them is deduced all genuine history. Character is the chief
element, for it is both a result and a cause, — a result of
influences and a cause of results.

GEN. GEORGE ff. THOMAS. 645

Each of these elements in the career of General Thomas
throws light on the others ; for throughout his life, whether we
consider causes or results, there appears a harmony of propor-
tion, both logical and beautiful, which can spring only from a
genuine soul, true to itself, and therefore false to none.

From the meagre materials at our command, it appears that
he was of Welsh descent on his father's side ; though his ances-
tors resided for some time in England before they crossed the
sea. Both physically and intellectually. General Thomas bore
unmistakable marks of that sturdy Cambrian character which,
for four centuries, defied the conquering arms of Rome, and
which preserves to this day, in a small corner of Great Britain,
a language, literature, and body of traditions all its own. On
his mother's side he was of French origin; she having de-
scended from the Rochelles, a Huguenot family that fled from
the oppression of Louis XIV. to find an asylum in the New
World. Few elements ever mingled in our national life that
added such purity and brilliancy as that which the religious
wars of the sixteenth century sent to us from France ; and it
would be difficult to form a happier combination than the hon-
est solidity of the Welsh, joined to the genial vivacity of the
French.

Both branches of Thomas's family settled in Southeastern Vir-
ginia, in the early days of that Colony, and became thoroughly
imbued with the American spirit. His own birthplace and
home were in that region of Southampton County, Virginia,
which forms the water-shed between the James River and the
streams that flow into Albemarle Sound. Southampton, like
many of the counties in that region, was named by the colonists
in memory of their old English home.

George Henry Thomas was born on the 31st of July, 18 16.
We know but little of his early boyhood beyond the fact that it
was passed in a happy country home, in the society of brothers
and sisters, and under the direction of cultivated parents, who
ranked among the most respectable and influential of Virginia
farmers. One class of influences is specially worthy of notice.
There was much in the surroundings of a young Virginian at
that time to make him justly proud of his own State. The
glorious part she had borne in the war of independence, and in
that noble statesmanship which produced the Constitution and
government of the republic, was not forgotten by her young

646 GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS.

men. But much more could be said of Virginia. When
Thomas was eighteen years of age, the Constitution of the United
States had been in force forty-five years ; and during that period
Virginia had held the Presidency thirty-two years, had filled the
office of Secretary of State for more than twenty years, and had
given to the nation its greatest Chief Justice for thirty-four
years. These honorable evidences of leadership gave peculiar
significance and popularity to the doctrine of a great Virginia
statesman, embodied in the now sadly famous Resolutions of
1798, in which Virginia put forth the theory that the national
Constitution was a compact between the several States, and that
each State, in its own sovereign right, was the final judge of any
violation of the Constitution, and also of the measure and mode
of redress. During the first quarter of this century, Virginia
did not see that the inevitable logic of this theory was, first. Nul-
lification, and finally Secession. She saw in it only a safeguard
against possible aggression on the part of the national govern-
ment or her sister States. It was gratifying to the pride of her
citizens, to look upon their proud State as a virgin queen, fore-
most in founding a great republic, and nobly supporting it by
her sovereign will. We shall never do full justice to the con-
duct of Virginians in the late war, without making full allowance
for the influence of these Resolutions of 1798.

When Thomas had reached the age of twenty, and had made
some progress in the study of the law, his family secured him
an appointment as cadet at the Military Academy at West Point.
He entered in 1836, and, after a thorough and solid rather than
a brilliant course, he graduated in 1840, ranking twelfth in
a class of forty-t\vo members, among whom were Sherman,
Ewell, Jordan, Getty, Herbert, Kingsbury, Van Vliet, and others,
who afterward attained celebrity. As a cadet, he was distin-
guished for what Bacon has called " round-about common sense"
rather than for genius, and for the possession of an honest,
sturdy nature, that accomplished whatever he undertook by
thorough, intelligent, persistent hard work.

Assigned to duty on the day of graduation as second lieuten-
ant of the Third Artillery, he served in the regular army for
twenty years, during which time he rendered honorable and
faithful service in the Florida war from 1840 to 1842; in com-
mand of various forts and barracks from 1842 to 1845; in the
military occupation of Texas in 1845-46; in the Mexican war

GEN, GEORGE ff. THOMAS. 647

from 1846 to 1848, participating in the battle of Buena Vista
and in nearly all the operations of General Taylor's army ; in
the Seminole war in 1849-50; as instructor in artillery and cav-
alry at West Point from 185 1 to 1854; on frontier duty at vari-
ous posts in the interior of California and Texas, leading several
expeditions against the Indians, from 1855 to the autumn of
i860. During these twenty years he was repeatedly brevetted
for gallant and meritorious services, and rose through all the
grades to a captaincy of artillery; and in 1855 was made a
major of the Second Cavalry, which regiment he commanded
for three years. He was wounded in a skirmish with the In-
dians, at the head-waters of the Brazos River, in August, i860,
and in the following November went east on a leave of ab-
sence.

Here let us pause on the threshold of the great events then
impending, and inquire what manner of man Thomas had be-
come. He was forty-four years of age; had walked for nearly
a quarter of a century, steadily and uncomplainingly, in the
rugged paths of a soldier's life; had made himself complete
master of all the details of his profession ; had honored every
station he had occupied ; was in turn honored by his govern-
ment and his comrades ; and was held in peculiar honor by the
people of his own State. Virginia had presented him a splendid
sword, as a recognition of his high qualities and gallant con-
duct in the Mexican war; and the proud aristocracy of South-
ampton, to which his family belonged, esteemed him a bright
ornament of their society. He had scarcely reached home
when the fearful portents of the storm began to appear. Shar-
ing in the traditional sentiment of the army, that a soldier should
take no part in politics, he had never identified himself with any
political party, and probably had never cast a vote. But we have
no reason to doubt that he shared in the general sentiments of
Virginia, and deprecated any agitation which should disturb her
social institutions. During the winter of 1860-61, he watched
with painful anxiety the culmination of that conflict of opinion
which preceded the war ; and he regarded the growing political
strife as a measureless outrage, in which both contestants were
wrong, but in which Northern agitators were the first aggres-
sors. The teachings of the Constitution and laws relating to the
subject-matter of the contest were sadly obscured by the legal
subtleties then employed to defend, or apologize for, a dissolu-

648 GEN. GEORGE ff. THOMAS.

tion of the Union. The President had declared in his annual
message to Congress, December 4, i860, that "the Constitution
confers upon Congress no power to coerce into submission
a State that is attempting to withdraw from the Union," and
that " the sword was not placed in the hands of Congress to
preserve the Union by force/' To the officers of the army
this official declaration of their commander-in-chief amounted
to a decree that, should their States secede, neither he nor they
could do any lawful military act to prevent it. They had a
right to regard this decree, while it remained unrevoked, as an
order for the regulation of their conduct.

Before the middle of February, 1 861, seven States had passed
ordinances of secession ; the Confederate government was act-
ually set up at Montgomery; Southern leaders declared the
Union lawfully and permanently dissolved, and that there would
be no war. Looking back from our present standpoint, we can
hardly understand how widespread was the opinion, both North
and South, that the Union was gone, and that the government
was powerless to restore it. To an officer of the army the situa-
tion was painful and perplexing to the last degree. Dissolution
of the Union without war would carry with it the inevitable
dissohition of the army; and, besides the shame and humilia-
tion which an officer must feci at the ruin of a nation whose
honor he had so long defended in arms, he saw that he must
look about him for some new pursuit by which to earn his bread.
What will Thomas do? What path will he mark out for his
own feet to follow through this bewildering maze? His State
had not yet seceded ; but her heart was on fire, and no one
knew how far she would go, nor how many would follow her in
the work of ruin.

Let us consider more closely his surroundings. He was a
major of the Second Cavalry, a regiment organized in 1855 by
Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War, out of the ^lite of the army.
Either by accident or design, three fourths of its officers were
from the Slave States. Its roster, as printed in the Army Regis-
ter of i860, shows a list of names now widely notorious in the
history of the war. Albert Sidney Johnston was its colonel,
Robert E. Lee its lieutenant-colonel, and W. J. Hardee its senior
major. Among its captains and lieutenants were Van Dorn,
Kirby Smith, Jenifer, Hood, and Fitzhugh Lee. More than
one third of its officers afterward became rebel generals, and

GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS, 649

others held less conspicuous rank in the same service. The
regiment had served for five years on the Indian frontier ; and
its officers, thus remote from the social and political centres,
had lived on terms of the closest official and personal intimacy.
It is difficult to overestimate the combined influence of these
brilliant and cultivated men upon the sentiments and conduct
of each. We have seen already how strong were the influences
of family, neighborhood, and early life that bound Thomas to
his State. All these were now thrown violently into the South-
ern scale. Besides the fact that his wife was a patriotic Northern
lady, there was scarcely a countervailing force in the whole
circle of his domestic and social life. Given these facts and the
impending conflict, what will be the conduct of a man pos-
sessing clear perceptions, high character, and real nerve? He
would be less than a man who could choose his path without
the keenest suffering. Only a man of the highest type could
comprehend all, suffer all, and, resolutely striking through the
manifold entanglements of the problem, follow, with steady eye
and unfaltering step, the highest duty. While the contest was
confined to the politicians, and found expression only in consti-
tutional theories and legal subtleties, the wisest might well be
perplexed. But the flash of the first gun revealed to the clear
intellect of Thomas the whole character and spirit of the con-
troversy; and his choice was made in an instant. Relinquish-
ing the remainder of his leave of absence, he reported for duty
at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, April 14, the day that our
flag went down at Sumter, and less than forty-eight hours after
the first shot was fired.

His regiment, betrayed in Texas by the treachery of General
Twiggs, had come north to be reorganized and equipped, and
he entered at once upon the work. Three days after his arrival
at Carlisle, by fraud and intrigue in her convention, Virginia
resolved herself out of the Union ; and (pending a ratification
of the act by a popular vote to be taken on the 23d of May)
formed a treaty offensive and defensive with the rebel govern-
ment of Jefferson Davis. The Resolutions of 1798 had borne
their bitter fruits. The same day. Governor Letcher, as the
chief of a "sovereign State," issued his proclamation calling
upon " all efficient and worthy Virginians in the army of the
United States to withdraw therefrom, and enter the service of
Virginia." Three days later, April 20, Robert E. Lee resigned

his commission, after a service of thirty years, and his example
was followed hy hundreds of Southern oificers. With but two,
exceptions, all the officers from seceded States who belonged
to the Second Cavalry joined the rebellion. Thomas was one
of tlie two. While his brother officers were leaving, and at
once taking high commands in the rebel army, a comrade asked
Thomas what he would do if Virginia should vote to secede.
'■ / will kelp t" whip her back again," was his answer.

On the 23d of May, the people of Virginia enacted the
mockery of an election, to ratify her secession from the Union
against which she had already taken up arms. Their over-
whelming vote in favor of secession swept away from our army
nearly all the Virginians who had not left in April. With the
news of this election there came to Thomas the passionate
appeals of his family and friends, the summons of his State to
join her armies, and the threatening anathemas of them all in
case he should refuse. He answered by leaving Carlisle Bar-
racks on tile 27th of May, and leading a brigade from Cham-
bcrsburg across Maryland to Williamsport, and, on the 16th of
June rode across the Potomac in full uniform, at the head of
bis brigade, to invade Virginia and fight his old commanders;
and, a few days later, he led the right wing of General Patter-
son's army in the battle of Falling Waters, where the rebels
under Stonewall Jackson were defeated. Such was the answer
that Thomas made to the demands of rebellion.

Before leaving this period in the life of General Thomas, it is
due to his memory and to the truth of history that I should
notice an attempt which was first made in the South, amidst the
passions of war, to throw a shadow on his good name, by de-
claring that he sought service on the rebel side, and only
determined to stand by the Union when he failed to receive
such rank as he desired among her enemies.

When peace reopened intercourse between the North and
South, these voices of calumny were silent, and remained so as
long as Thomas was alive to answer. But when he was dead,
his defamers ventured again to speak. The spectacle of a
grateful nation standing in grief around his honored grave
awakened to new energy the envy and malice of those who had
staked all, and lost all, in the mad attempt to destroy that re-
pubhc which Thomas had so powerfully aided to save. I should
dishonor his memory were I even to notice the wicked assaults

I

GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS. 651

made upon him in rebel journals by writers who withheld their
names, or shielded themselves behind the impersonality of a
newspaper editorial. One attack, however, — and, so far as I
know, only one, — has had the indorsement of a responsible
name. The Richmond (Virginia) Dispatch, of April 23, 1870,
contains a letter from Fitzhugh Lee, late a general in the rebel
army, and before the war a lieutenant in the regiment of which
Thomas was major, in which Lee asserts, that just before the
war Thomas's feelings were strongly Southern; that in 1861
he expressed his Intention to resign; and about the same time
sent a letter to Governor Letcher, offering his services to
Virginia.

To this statement I invite the most searching scrutiny. That
prior to the war the sentiments of Thomas were generally in
accord with those which prevailed in Virginia, and that he
strongly reprobated many of the opinions and much of the
conduct of Northern politicians, were facts well known to his
f/iends, and always frankly avowed by himself. That in the
winter of 1860-61 he contemplated the resignation of his com-
mission, we have no proof except the declaration of Fitzhugh
Lee. But it would not be in the least surprising or inconsistent
if, at that time, it seemed to him more than probable that dis-
union would be accomplished, and the army dissolved by polit-
ical action and without war. Should that happen, he must
perforce abandon his profession and seek some other employ-
ment. If it should appear that at that time he made inquiries
looking toward a prospective employment as professor in some
college, the fact would only indicate his fear that the politicians
would so ruin both his country and its army that the commis-
sion of a soldier would be no longer an object of honorable
desire. The charge that he ever offered or proposed to offer
his sword to Virginia, or to any rebel authority, except point
foremost, and at the head of his troops, is utterly and infa-
mously false. Not a shadow of a proof has ever been offered,
nor can it be. When Fitzhugh Lee's letter was published, he
was challenged on all sides to produce the letter which he
alleged Thomas had written, tendering his services to the
rebellion. His utter failure to produce any such letter, or any
proof that such a letter was ever written, is a complete refuta-
tion of the charge.

A few weeks after his first assault, Lee did indeed publish

652 GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS.

what purports to be a letter written by General Thomas, dated
New York City, January i8, 1861. Whether this letter is gen-
uine or not, and, if genuine, whether printed as it was written,
we have no other evidence than our faith in those who received
and published it. But waiving the question of its genuineness,
and of the correctness of the printed text, I appeal to the letter
itself. It is not addressed to Governor Letcher, nor to any
rebel authority ; nor does the writer tender his services to Vir-
ginia, or to any government or person. It is a letter addressed
to a gentleman who had advertised in the newspapers for some
one to fill a professorship in a military college in Virginia. The
letter inquires what salary pertains to the situation. It ex-
presses no intention or willingness to resign ; and states, as the
writer's reason for making the inquiry, that, from present ap-
pearances, he fears it will soon be necessary for him to be
looking up some means of support. This letter strongly con-
firms the views I have taken of General Thomas's character and
feelings. '

Since the publication of Lee's letters, testimony has come
from all quarters which annihilates forever all ground for this
charge ; and now, while the witnesses are living, I desire to put
on record at least a small portion of their testimony. General
Hartsufif, now and for many years a soldier of whom the nation
is proud, writes that he saw Thomas many times, near the close
of i860, in the city of New York, and heard him discuss the
state of the country, in company with many officers who after-
ward went into the rebel army. He says: —

" General Thomas was strong and bitter in his denunciations against
all parties North and South that seemed to him responsible for the condi-
tion of affairs But while he reprobated, sometimes very strongly,

certain men and parties North, in that respect going as far as any of
those who aftenvard joined the rebels, he never, in my hearing, agreed
with them respecting the necessity of going with their States ; but he
denounced the idea, and denied the necessity, of dividing the country,
or destroying the government. This was before the actual secession of
any of the States, when the prospect of war was not strong."

These statements of General Hartsufif are abundantly cor-
roborated by other testimony. Let it be remembered that the
question is not what were General Thomas's opinions of the
political causes that led to the war, nor who was at fault in
bringing on the agitation; but, Did he give any countenance,

GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS. 653

sympathy, or support to the idea of disunion, or of war against
the government?

Listen to the testimony of General R. W. Johnson, for many
years a gallant soldier of our army, and now an honored mem-
ber of this Society : —

" After the surrender in Texas, my regiment (of which Thomas was
major) concentrated at Carlisle Barracks. . I was intimately associated
with General Thomas from that time until the close of the war. Dur-
ing the Patterson campaign we messed together, and frequently con-
versed freely together in regard to the war. I remember to have asked
him what he should do if Virginia seceded. His reply was characteristic
of the man : ' I will help to whip her back again.* General Thomas
never flinched, nor faltered, nor wavered in his devotion to his country.''

General Patterson, under whose command Thomas performed
his first duty in the field, in May and June, 1861, says of
him: —

" General Thomas contemplated with horror the prospect of a waF
between the people of his own State and the Union ; but he never for a
moment hesitated, never wavered, never swerved, from his allegiance to
the nation that had educated him and whose servant he was. From the
beginning I would have pledged my hopes here and hereafter on the

loyalty of Thomas He was the most unselfish man I ever knew ;

a perfectly honest man, who feared God and obeyed his commandments."

What weightier testimony can be conceived than that of his
classmate and friend of many years, the General of our Army,
the great soldier with whom Thomas served so grandly in the
darkest hours of the war? General Sherman has favored me
with a letter, from which I quote. After stating that he went to
Williamsport to visit Thomas early in 1861, he says: —

" It was June i6th, the very day Patterson's army crossed the Potomac.
I had a long personal conversation with Thomas that day, and after dis-
cussing the events that then pressed so heavily on all who dreaded civil
war, especially the course taken by our friends who had abandoned our
service and gone South, I asked him how he felt His answer was em-
phatic : ' I have thought it all over,' he said, ' and I shall stand firm in
the service of the government.' "

General Sherman also writes, under date of August I, 1870: —

" I have seen the letters published by Fitzhugh Lee, sustaining the
assertion that, at the outset of our civil war, Thomas leaned to the South.
I understand the Itate of his mind at that dreadful crisis, and see how a

1

654 C£A: GEORGE H. THOMAS.

stranger might misconstrue him. Al the lime to which Fitzhugh Lee
aUudes, the Buchanan administration was in power, and had admitted
that the Federal government could not coerce a sovereign State ; and
his Cabinet did all they could to make army officers feel insecure in their
offices. The Northern politicians, as a rule, had been unfHendly to the
army, and when the election of Lincoln and Hamlin was complete, they
(the officers) naturally felt uneasy as to their future, and cast about for
employment Several of them, I among the number, were employed at
the military colleges of the South, and it was natural that Thomas should
look to his friend, and our classmate, Gilham, then employed at Frank
Smith's mihtary school at Lexington, Virginia. Thomas also entertained,
as you must know, that intense mistrust of politicians to which the old
army was bred, and feared the compUcations of i860 would result ia
some political compromise or settlement, if not in a mutual agreement to
separate ; in which case it is possible he would haie been forced for a
support to have cast his lot with the Southern part. It is more than
probable that, at the mess-lable, Thomas may have given vent to some
such feelings and opinions, then natural and proper enough. But as
soon as Mr. Lincoln was installed in office, and manifested the deep
feeling of love for all parts of the country, — deprecating civil war, but
giving the key-note that the Union should be maintained, even if it had
to be fought for. and that forcible secession was treason. — then Thonios,
like all national men, brushed away the subtleties of the hour, saw dearij
his duty, and proclaimed it, not by mere words, but by riding in full uni-
form at the head of his regiment and brigade, invading without a murmur
his native State, and commanding his men to put down forcible resistance
by the musket."

This just and masterly analysis is more than sufficient to
settle the whole controversy. But I cannot dismiss the sub-
ject without opposing to his slanderers the stainless shield of
Thomas himself, — his own unimpeachable words, recorded by
Colonel A. L. Hough, his confidential aid at the time they were
spoken.

" A slander upon the General was often repeated in the Southern
papers during and immediately subsequent to the rebellion. It was
given upon the authority of prominent rebel officers, and not denied by
them. It was to the effect that he was disappointed in not getting a high
command in the rebel army he had sought for ; hence his refusal to join
in the rebellion. In a conversadon with him on this subject, the General
said this was an entire fabrication, not having an atom of foundation ;
not a line ever passed between him and the rebel authorities ; they have
no genuine letter of his, nor was a word spoken by him to any one that
could even lead to such an inference. He defied any one to produce

GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS. 655

any testimony, written or oral, to sustain such allegation ; he never enter-
tained such an idea, for his duty was clear to him from the beginning."

Among these utterances of General Thomas, one brief sen-
tence, simple and sublime, is an epitome of his character and
life. It is this : " My duty was clear from the beginning of
the war."

It is not enough to compare the conduct of Thomas at this
trying period with that of Northern officers who remained true
to the flag. The real measure of his merit is found by compar-
ing him with such men as Lee and Johnston. Let us compare
and contrast the conduct of Thomas with that of Robert E. Lee,
who became the military chief and idol of the Southern Confed-
eracy, and who, by the verdict of both friends and enemies,
possessed many high qualities.

We have seen that, on the 20th of April, Lee resigned his
commission. On the same day, he wrote to a relative words
which will remain forever as the most veritable picture of his
character : —

" The whole South is in a state of revolution, into wliich Virginia, after
a long struggle, has been drawn ; and though I recognize no necessity
for this state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end
for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had
to meet the question whether I should take part against my native State.
With all my devotion to the Union, and the feelings of loyalty and duty
of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to
raise my hand against my relatives, my children, and my home. I have
therefore resigned my commission in the army," etc.

Lee here avows his devotion to the Union, his feelings of
loyalty and obligation as an American citizen, and declares that
there was no necessity for the rebellion ; and yet, after these
confessions and declarations, which surrender utterly and for-
ever all grounds for the justification of his conduct, he abandons
his government, and offers his sword to Virginia and to that
rebellion which he neither justified nor approved.

Like Lee, Thomas deplored the suicidal strife, and denied the
justice or necessity of rebellion. Like Lee, he was warmly
attached to his family and friends, to Virginia and her glorious
traditions. Like Lee, he acknowledged his obligations to the
great republic, of which all the people of Virginia were citizens,
and to the support and defence of which he had registered his

6s6 GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS.

solemn oath when he became a soldier. But, unlike Lee, when
the supreme hour of trial came, he rose to the full height of the
great occasion, and, esteeming the sanctity of his oath and the
life of the republic more precious than home, or kindred, or
State, drew his sword to put down a rebellion which, even by
Lee's confession, was both unnecessary and indefensible.

There was one thing in Lee's conduct which would have been
impossible to Thomas's nature. Though Lee wrote his resigna-
tion on April 20th, it was not accepted by the Secretary of War
till the 25th; and the letter of the Adjutant-General informing
him of its acceptance was not written till the 27th. Yet on the
23d of April Lee accepted the appointment of Major-General
from the rebel Governor of Virginia, and the same day issued
and published a general order assuming command of the mili-
tary and naval forces of that State, which forces, five days before,
had attacked the troops of the United States at Harper's Ferry,
and also at the Gosport navy yard, and were at that moment
levying war against the government which he had solemnly
sworn to defend " against all its enemies and opposers whatso-
ever." Instead of keeping this oath, he assumed command of
the armed enemies of the Union two days before his contract of
service was cancelled, — a contract which he had lately renewed
by accepting from Abraham Lincoln the commission of Colonel
in the army of the United States.^

If there had been no other sufficient motive, the religious
respect with w^hich Thomas regarded his oath would alone have
prevented him from following the example of Lee. I conclude
the discussion of this topic by declaring what I doubt not will
be the just and unalterable verdict of history, that this was no
doubting Thomas ; that he did not need to behold the bleeding
wounds of his country before he believed, for his *' duty W'as
clear from the beginning," and he followed it without a murmur.
Both these men are in their graves, and the judgment of man-
kind will finally assign them their places in history. Yox the
verdict, I confidently appeal from the Virginia of to-day to the
Virginia of the future.

After serving through the brief campaign of the Shenandoah,
General Thomas entered upon a wider field of action, and began
that career which his country knows by heart. It is not possi-
ble, within the limits of this address, to give more than the most

^ See Appendices to this Oration.

GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS. 657

meagre outline of his military services during the war for the
Union. I shall, therefore, attempt no more than to state the
nature and scope of his work, and to consider some of the qual-
ities which he exhibited while performing it.

The fame of General Thomas as a soldier is linked forever
with the history of the Army of the Cumberland; for in i§6i
he mustered in and organized its first brigade, and in 1865, ^^
Nashville, the scene of his greatest victory, he passed in farewell
review, and mustered out of the service, more than one hundred
and thirty thousand of its war-worn veterans.

The Department of the Cumberland, embracing, at first, only
Tennessee and Kentucky, was created by the War Department,
August 15, 1 86 1, and General Robert Anderson placed in com-
mand. At Anderson's request, Sherman, Thomas, and Buell
were made Brigadier-Generals of Volunteers, and assigned to his
command. The remainder of 1861 was the period of organ-
ization. The first month's work that Thomas performed in
the department was at Camp Dick Robinson, where he mus-
tered into service eleven regiments and three batteries of Ohio,
Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee troops. These he organized
into the First Brigade, which formed, first, the nucleus of the
division, then of the corps, and finally of the great army which
he afterward commanded so long.

In order to appreciate the career of General Thomas, it is
necessary to comprehend, not only the magnitude of the work
to be accomplished by the Army of the Cumberland, but also
the relation which that army and its work sustained to the other
great armies of the Union.

It is now easy to see that, between the Northern and Southern
States, there are three great natural pathways of invasion ; and
that, to put down the rebellion, it was necessary that each of
these be traversed and held by a great army. The first was the
long and narrow slope from the chain of the Alleghany and
Cumberland Mountains to the Atlantic coast. The second was
the great Western slope from the same mountain chain to the
Ohio, the Tennessee, and the Tombigbee Rivers, and extending
southward to the Gulf. The third was the Mississippi River
itself, and the immediate territory along its banks. Peculiarities
of topography and surroundings required for each of these lines
different modes of supplying an army and of conducting cam-
paigns.

VOL. I. 4^

6s8 GEN, GEORGE H. THOMAS.

The army of the East, which operated on the first line, was
in great part supplied from the sea, and many of its operations
were carried on in conjunction with the navy. The army on
the third, or western line, was supplied from the Mississippi
River, and the gun-boat service formed a novel and important
feature in its military operations. The Army of the Cumber-
land held the centre line, which was in many respects the most
difficult of all. There could be but little naval co-operation
with its movements, and only for a short distance could it be
supplied by river transportation. Its main supply was by a
single line of railroad, running hundreds of miles among a
hostile population, and requiring a heavy force for its protec-
tion. The great central pathway led into the heart of the
rebellion. It crossed the only line of railway (the Memphis
and Charleston) which united the Eastern and Western States
of the Confederacy. Extraordinary obstacles lay in the path-
way of an army moving southward over this central route.
Besides the broad and deep rivers which cross it, .he great
mountain chain itself, bending sharply near the Georgia line,
sweeps westward until it loses itself in the low sand-hills and
plains of Alabama and Mississippi, thus presenting a most for-
midable barrier to an army invading the Gulf States. The great
gateway of the mountain chain is at Chattanooga, where the
Tennessee River bursts through the barrier.

Nothing more strikingly illustrates the military genius and
foresight of General Sherman, than the fact that, so early as
October, 1861, he comprehended the vastness of the struggle
upon which the nation had entered, and the vital importance
of this central line of operation. At that time, being in com-
mand of the Department of the Cumberland, he sent to the
War Department his estimate : ** That to advance on the line
of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad would require an
army of at least sixty thousand men ; and to advance the great
line of the centre to its ultimate objective, and reap the legiti-
mate rewards, would require an army of two hundred thousand
men."

This estimate was not only construed to his prejudice by
the authorities at Washington, but you will remember that the
public journals regarded his views as a conclusive evidence of
insanity ! At his own request, Sherman was relieved of the
command, and on the 15th of November went to duty in an-

GEN. GEORGE H, THOMAS. 659

other department, not to return again to the great h'ne of the
centre until the country and its authorities had been educated
up to his views of 1861. On the 15th of November, General
Buell was placed in command of the department ; and, as if to
narrow the field of operations and restrict the views which
General Sherman had expressed, the name of the department
was changed, by order of the Secretary of War, to " The De-
partment of the Ohio."

The rebel authorities early saw the vital importance of push-
ing as far North as possible on this central line ; and before
the end of 1861 they had established themselves in force on a
line extending from the base of the Cumberland Mountains, by
way of Bowling Green, Forts Donelson and Henry, to Colum-
bus on the Mississippi. While the forces at Cairo, under Gen-
eral Grant, were threatening the left of this line at Columbus,
and General Buell's main force was preparing to move on Bowl-
ing Green against Albert Sidney Johnston, who commanded the
centre and right, a rebel movement was in progress in Eastern
and Southern Kentucky, which threatened the left and rear of
General Buell's army, and would seriously disturb its movement
against Johnston. In the early autumn of 1861 the rebel au-
thorities had organized a brigade in Eastern Tennessee and
Southwestern Virginia, for the special purpose of guarding the
mountain passes at Pound Gap and Cumberland Gap. Before
the end of the year they had also organized two active forces
to operate in front of these gaps, — one under Marshall, which
moved from the neighborhood of Pound Gap down the Sandy
Valley, and the other, a larger force, under Zollicoffer, which
occupied the road leading from Cumberland Gap to Lexington.

The first work of General Buell's campaign was to drive back
these forces, and occupy the two mountain passes, in order to
protect his flank and rear. General Thomas had been placed
in command of the First Division of the army, and on the 31st
of December was ordered to move against Zollicoffer. In
pursuance of this order he fought and won the battle of Mill
Springs, January 19, 1862, which was by far the most important
military success that had yet been achieved west of Virginia,
and which, with the exception of the defeat of Marshall, near
Prestonburg, nine days before, was the first victory in the de-
partment. In this battle General Thomas laid the foundation
of his fame in the army of the centre. It was the largest and

GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS.

most important command that he had held up to that time, and
his troops came out of the fight with the strongest confidence
in his qualities as a commander. This battle fully launched
him upon his career; and from that time to the end of tlie war
his life was so crowded with events, that I can do no more than
note the stages of command and responsibility through which
he passed; and even this I do only to recall it to your minds
as a subject of reflection.

From the 30th of November, 1 8G1 , to the 30th of September,
i8(53, he commanded a division of General Buell's army without
intermission, except that during the months of May and June
he commanded the right wing of the Army of the Tennessee,
in and around Corinth, On the 30th of September. 1862. he
was appointed second in command of the Army of the Ohio,
and served in that capacity in the battle of Perryville, and until
October 30, 1862, when the old name of " Department of the
Cumberland " was restored, and General Rosecrans assumed
command. That officer reorganized the army then known as
the " Fourteenth Army Corps'" into three distinct commands,
— right. lc(\, and centre, — and assigned Thomas to the centre,
which consisted of five divisions. He held this command in
the battle of Stone River, and until the 9th of January, 1863,
when, by order of the War Department, the three divisions of
the army were made army corps. One of these, the Fourteenth
Army Corps, Thomas commanded during the campaigns of
Middle Tennessee and Chickamauga. which resulted in driving
the rebels beyond the Tennessee River, and gaining possession
o{ Chattanooga, On the 19th of October, in obedience to or-
ders from the War Department, he relieved General Rosecrans,
and assumed command of the Army of the Cumberland. Soon
afterward two other armies, Sherman's and Schofield's. were
brought to Chattanooga, the three forming a grand army under
General Grant, for the purpose of pushing the rebels farther
south on the great line of the centre. The Army of the Cum-
berland, consisting of four corps, formed the centre of the grand
army. In this position Thomas commanded it at the storm-
ing of Missionary Ridge, and in that series of masterly move-
ments and battles in Georgia which resulted in the capture of
Atlanta, September i, 1864. On the 27th of September, Thomas
was ordered to Tennessee to protect the department against the
invasion of Hood. While in this command he conducted the

1

GEN, GEORGE H. THOMAS. 66 1

operations which resulted in the combats along Duck River ;
the battle of Franklin, November 30 ; the destruction of Hood's
army in the battle of Nashville, December 15 and 16, 1864; and
finally, in the capture of Jefferson Davis in May, 1865. From
June, 1865, to May, 1869, he commanded most of the territory
which had been the theatre of his service during the war; and
on the 15th of May, 1869, he started for San Francisco, where
he remained in command of the Military Division of the Pacific
until the date of his death, March 28, 1870. He was appointed
Major-General of Volunteers, April 25, 1862; Brigadier-General
in the Regular Army, October 27, 1863, and Major-General,
December 15, 1864.

In the presence of such a career, let us consider the qualities
which produced it and the character which it developed.

We are struck, at the outset, with the evenness and complete-
ness of his life. There were no breaks in it, no chasms, no up-
heavals. His pathway was a plane of continued elevation. It
was so at the Military Academy. Slowly, but steadily and
thoroughly, he worked up the sturdy materials of his nature
into that strength and harmony which culture alone can pro-
duce. At the end of his first year, on the basis of general
merit, he ranked twenty-sixth in his class. Each year witnessed
an upward movement. At the end of his course he stood
twelfth in his class. He was successively corporal, sergeant, and
lieutenant of cadets. The rules of the Academy make the slight-
est irregularity of conduct or appearance a ground for demerit ;
and many cadets were marked hundreds of demerits in the course
of a year. Thomas had but twenty during his first year, nine-
teen the second, eighteen the third, and fourteen the fourth.
In the army he never leaped a grade, either in rank or com-
mand. He did not command a company until after long ser-
vice as a lieutenant. He commanded a regiment only at the
end of many years of company and garrison duty. He did not
command a brigade until after he had commanded his regiment
three years on the Indian frontier. He did not command a
division until after he had mustered in, organized, disciplined,
and commanded a brigade. He did not command a corps until
he had led his division in battle and through many hundred
miles of hostile country. He did not command the army until,
in battle, at the head of his corps, he had saved the army from
ruin.

662 GEN. GEORGE If. THOMAS.

This regular and steady advancement was suited to the char-
acter of his mind and the habits of his life. When, in Septem-
ber, 1863, he was offered the command of the Army of the Ohio,
he peremptorily declined it, and urged the retention of General
Buell. It would have violated his law of growth to leap from a
division to the head of an army, without first having assured
himself, by actual trial, tliat he could handle a corps. The law
of his life was greater than his love of fame.

In such a career, it is by no means the least of a man's
achievements to take his own measure, to discover and under-
stand the scope and range of his own capacity. Probably the
best gauge of military ability is found in the number of troops
that a man can handle wisely and well in battle. The most
successful soldier of our war has said that, when he accepted the
command of his Illinois regiment, he deeply distrusted his ability
to handle so large a number of men. He knew he could handlfr
a company, for he had done that in Mexico; but how muchi
higher his range extended he did not know. General Sherman
has expressed the opinion that no man can effectually handle
more than seventy thou.sand men in battle, in a wooded country
like ours. Thomas was right in declining to command the
Army of the Ohio in 1862. A year later he had tested himself,
and was ready to bear greater responsibility.

His career was not only great and complete, but, what is more
significant, it was in an eminent degree the work of his own
hands. It was not the result of accident or happy chance. I
do not deny that in all human pursuits, and especially in war,
results are often determined by what men call fortune, — " that
name for the unknown combinations of infinite power." But
this is almost always a modifying rather than an initial force.
Only a weak, a vain, or a desperate man will rely upon it for
success. Thomas's life is a notable illustration of the virtue
and power of hard work ; and in the last analysis the power to
do hard work is only another name for talent. Professor Church,
one of his instructors at West Point, says of his student life, that
" he never allowed anything to escape a thorough examination,
and left nothing behind that he did not fully comprehend." And
so it was in the army. To him a battle was neither an earth-
quake, nor a volcano, nor a chaos of brave men and frantic
horses involved in vast explosions of gunpowder. It was rather
a calm, rational concentradoa of force against force. It was a

I

GEN. GEORGE H, THOMAS. 663

question of lines and positions, — of weight of metal and strength
of battalions. He knew that the elements and forces which
bring victory arc not created on the battle-field, but must be
patiently elaborated in the quiet of the camp, by the perfect
organization and outfit of his army. His remark to a captain
of artillery while inspecting a battery is worth remembering,
for it exhibits his theory of success ; ** Keep everything in order,
for the fate of a battle may turn on a buckle or a linch-pin."
He understood so thoroughly the condition of his army and its
equipment that, when the hour of trial came, he knew how great
a pressure it could stand, and how hard a blow it could strike.

His character was as grand and as simple as a colossal pillar
of chiselled granite. Every step of his career as a soldier was
marked by the most loyal and unhesitating obedience to law, —
to the laws of his government and to the commands of his
superiors. * The obedience which he rendered to those above
him he rigidly required of those under his command. His in-
fluence over his troops grew steadily and constantly. He won
his ascendency over them neither by artifice nor by any one act
of special daring, but he gradually filled them with his own
spirit, until their confidence in him knew no bounds. His power
as a commander was developed slowly and silently ; not like
volcanic land lifted from the sea by sudden and violent up-
heaval, but rather like a coral island, where each increment is
a growth, — an act of life and work.

Power exhibits itself under two distinct forms, — strength and
force, — each possessing peculiar qualities, and each perfect in
its own sphere. Strength is typified by the oak, the rock, the
mountain. Force embodies itself in the cataract, the tempest,
the thunderbolt. The great tragic poet of Greece, in describing
the punishment of Prometheus for rebellion against Jupiter,
represented Vulcan descending from heaven, attended by two
mighty spirits. Strength and Force, by whose aid he held and
bound Prometheus to the rock. In subduing our great rebel-
lion, the republic called to its aid men who represented many
forms of great excellence and power. A very few of our com-
manders possessed more force than Thomas, — more genius for
planning and executing bold and daring enterprises ; but, in my
judgment, no other was so complete an embodiment and incar-
nation of strength, — the strength that resists, maintains, and
endures. His power was not that of the cataract, which leaps

r 1

664 GBN. GEORGE H. THOMAS. ^

in fury down the chasm, but rather that of the river, broad and
deep, whose current is steady, silent, irresistible.

Tt was most natural tliat such a man should be placed in the
centre of movements. The work to be accomplished on the
great line of the centre was admirably adapted to the military
character of Thomas. To advance steadily and to stay — to
occupy and to hold — was the business of the Army of the
Cumberland from first to last. It is a significant fact, that, from
the autumn of 1S62 till the autumn of 1S64, — from Bowling
Green to Atlanta, — whether commanding a division, a corps,
or an army, his position on the march and his post in battle
was the centre. And he was placed there because it was found
that, when his command occupied the centre, that centre could
not be broken. It never was broken. At Stone River he was
the unmoved and immovable pivot, around which swung our
routed right wing. As the eye of Rosecrans, our daring and
brilliant commander, swept over that bloody field, it always
rested on Thomas, as the centre of his hope. For five days
Thomas's command stood fighting in their bloody tracks, until
twenty per cent of their members were killed or wounded, and
the enemy had retreated. But it was reserved for, the last day
at Chickamauga to exhibit, in one supreme example, the vast
resources of his prodigious strength.

After a day of heavy fighting and a night of anxious prepara-
tion. General Rosecrans had established his lines for the purpose
of holding the road to Chattanooga. This road was to be the
prize of that day's battle. If our army failed to hold it, not
only was our campaign a failure, but inevitable destruction
awaited the army itself. Rosecrans had crossed the Tennessee,
and had successfully manceuvred the enemy out of Chatta-
nooga. The greater work remained, to march his own army
into that place, in the face of Bragg's army, heavily reinforced,
and greatly outnumbering his own.

The Rossville road — the road to Chattanooga — was the
great prize to be won or lost at Chickamauga. If the enemy
failed to gain it, their campaign would be an unmitigated dis-
aster; for the gateway of the mountains would be irretrievably
lost. If our army failed to hold it, not only would our campaign
be a failure, but almost inevitable destruction awaited the army
itself. The first day's battle (September 19), which lasted far
into the night, left us in possession of the road ; but all knew

GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS. 665

that the next day would bring the final decision. Late at night,
surrounded by his commanders, assembled in the rude cabin
known as the Widow Glenn's House, Rosecrans gave his orders
for the coming morning. The substance of his order to Thomas
was this : " Your line lies across the road to Chattanooga. That
is the pivot of the battle. Hold it at all hazards ; and I will
reinforce you, if necessary, with the whole army."

During the whole night, the reinforcements of the enemy were
coming in. Early next morning, we were attacked along the
whole line. Thomas commanded the left and centre of our
army. From early morning, he withstood the furious and re-
peated attacks of the enemy, who constantly reinforced his
assaults on our left. About noon, our whole right wing was
broken, and driven in hopeless confusion from the field. Rose-
crans was himself swept away in the tide of retreat. The forces
of Longstreet, which had broken our right, desisted from the
pursuit, and, forming in heavy columns, assaulted Thomas's
right flank with unexampled fury. Seeing the approaching
danger, he threw back his exposed flank toward the base of
the mountain and met the new peril.

While men shall read the history of battles, they will never
fail to study and admire the work of Thomas during that after-
noon. With but twenty-five thousand men, formed in a semi-
circle of which he himself was the centre aijd soul, he successfully
resisted for more than five hours the repeated assaults of an
army of sixty-five thousand men, flushed with victory, and bent
on his annihilation. Toward the close of the day, his ammuni-
tion began to fail. One by one his division commanders re-
ported but ten rounds^ five rounds, or two rounds left. The
calm, quiet answer was returned : " Save your fire for close
quarters, and when your last shot is fired, give them the
bayonet." On a portion of his line, the last assault was repelled
by the bayonet, and several hundred rebels were captured.
When night had closed over the combatants, the last sound of
battle was the booming of Thomas's shells bursting among his
baffled and retreating assailants. He was, indeed, the " Rock
of Chickamauga," against which the wild waves of battle dashed
in vain. It will stand written forever in the annals of his coun-
try, that there he saved from destruction the Army of the Cum-
berland. He held the road to Chattanooga. The campaign
was successful. The gate of the mountains was ours.

1

666 GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS.

Time would fail mc to notice other illustrations of his quali-
ties, as exhibited at the storming of Missionary Ridge, and
during the " hundred days under fire " in the great march from
Chattanooga to Atlanta. Later in the war, tlicre awaited him
a test in some respects more searching than any that had yet
tried him.

On the 27th of September, 1864, he was ordered by General
Sherman to return with a portion of his army into Tennessee,
and defend the department against Hood's invasion. By the
end of October, Sherman had determined to cut loose from his
base and march to the sea. For this service he selected the
flower of his grand army, including two of the best corps of
Thomas's army. By the glh of November, Hood was encamped
on the banks of the Tennessee with forty thousand infantry and
not less than twelve thousand of the best cavalry in the rebel
service. Thus Thomas was confronted by that veteran army
which had so ably resisted Sherman's army on its march to
Atlanta. At the same date, Thomas had an effective force of
but twenty-three thousand infantry and seven thousand cavalry.
Convalescents and dismounted cavalry were coming back to
him from Atlanta; raw recruits were arriving from the North,
and two divisions were en route from Missouri. The problem
before him was how to delay the advance of the enemy until he
could organize a forca strong enough to win a battle.

The history of this campaign is too well known to need repeti-
tion here. I allude to it only to exhibit his characteristics as a
soldier. After the skilful resistance at Duck River and Spring
Hill, and the remarkably brilliant and bloody battle at Franklin,
he found Hood's army in front of Nashville on the Ist of Decem-
ber. With his accustomed care, he had measured the force of
the opposing armies and determined that by one plan only could
he achieve certain success. That plan required him to delay
the battle until he could get his new and improvised army fully
in hand, and could organize a cavalry force to secure the fruits
of victory. The authorities at Washington, fearing the break-
ing up of our communications with Chattanooga, and perhaps
another invasion of Kentucky, were dissatisfied with his delay,
and urged him to give battle immediately. He knew, better
than any other could know, the law of his own mind, and the
methods by which he had a right to expect success. The gth
of December came, and with it the intelligence that an order

GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS. 667

was prepared to suspend him from command and to require
another to make the attack. It may well be questioned whether
his response to this intelligence will not confer more glory on
his name than the winning of a battle. In his despatch of
December 9th to General Halleck, he said : —

" Your despatch of 10.30 a. m. this date is received. I regret that
General Grant should feel dissatisfection at my delay in attacking the
enemy. I feel conscious that I have done everything in my power to
prepare, and that the troops could not have been got ready before this ;
and if he should order me to be relieved I will submit without a murmur.
A terrible storm of freezing rain has come on since daylight, which will
render an attack impossible until it breaks."

On receiving this despatch, General Grant answered him that
he had telegraphed to suspend the order relieving him, and in
conclusion said, " I hope most sincerely that the facts will show
that you have been right all the time."

On the nth, however, he received from General Grant a
peremptory order to " delay no longer for weather or reinforce-
ments." Still the storm raged, and Nashville was locked in ice.
On the 1 2th, he attempted to form his lines for battle; but the
ground was so thickly incrusted with ice, that his troops could
neither ascend the slopes nor move in good order on level
ground. That night, he stated the situation to General Halleck,
in a telegram which concluded with these words : " Under these
circumstances, I believe that an attack at this time would only
result in a useless sacrifice of life." .Not until the morning of
the isth did he deem it possible to win a battle. That morning
the Lieutenant-General had started from City Point, Virginia,
on his way to Nashville to assume the command himself; but
at Washington, the news reached him of the first day's fight.
On the evening of the 1 6th, Thomas had substantially destroyed
the army of Hood.

In reviewing these transactions there would be no justice in
crimination or recrimination, — in blaming the living in order to
praise the dead. It was the spectacle of two able commanders,
each true to himself, each honoring the other while following
his highest convictions of duty; — the one impelled by the
wishes of his superiors, the President and Secretary of War,
and by his own judgment of the situation, to deliver immediate
battle; the other preferring to lose his command rather than

668 GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS.

to sacrifice his army, — to be right rather than seem so. Of
Thomas's conduct on this trying occasion, our comrade Gen-
era! Cox, who bore so noble a part in the Nashville campaign,
has well said: "He waited with immovable firmness for the
right hour to come. It came, and with it a justification of
both his military skill and his own self- forgetful patriotism, so
complete and glorious that it would be a mere waste of words
to talk about it." General Grant himself has officially put it on
record, that the defeat of Hood was the vindication of Thomas's
judgment.

Nashville was the only battle of our war which annihilated
an army. Hood crossed the Tennessee late in November, and
moved northward with an army of fifty-seven thousand veterans.
Before the end of December twenty- five thousand of that num-
ber were killed, wounded, or captured; thousands more had
deserted, and the rabble that followed him back to the South
was no longer an army.

In summing up the qualities of General Thomas, it is difficult
to find his exact parallel in history. His character as a man
and a .soldier was unique. In some respects he resembled Zach-
ary Taylor ; and many of his solid qualities as a soldier were
developed by his long service under that honest and sturdy
commander. In patient attention to all the details of duty, in
the thoroughness of organization, equipment, and discipline of
his troops, and in the powerful grasp by which he held and
wielded his army, he was not unlike, and fully equalled Welling-
ton. The language applied to the Iron Duke by the historian
of the Peninsular War might almost be mistaken for a descrip-
tion of Thomas, " He held his army in hand," says Napier,
" keeping it, with unmitigated labor, always in a fit state to
march or to fight Sometimes he was indebted to for-
tune, sometimes to his natural genius, always to his untiring
industry; for he was emphatically a painstaking man." The
language of Lord Brougham addressed to Wellington is a fitting
description of Thomas : " Mighty captain ! who never advanced
except to cover his arms with glory. Mightier captain I who
never retreated except to eclipse the glory of his advance."

If I remember correctly, no enemy was ever able to fight
Thomas out of any position that he undertook to hold.

On the whole, I cannot doubt that the most fitting parallel
to General Thomas is found in our greatest American, the

I

GEN. GEORGE If. THOMAS. 669

man who was ** first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts
of his countrymen." The personal resemblance of General
Thomas to Washington was often the subject of remark. Even
at West Point, Rosecrans was accustomed to call him General
Washington. He resembled Washington in the gravity and
dignity of his character, in the solidity of his judgment, in
the careful accuracy of all his transactions, in his incorruptible
integrity, and in his extreme, but unaffected modesty.

Though his death was most sudden and unexpected, all his
official papers, and his accounts with the government, were in
perfect order, and ready for instant settlement. His reports and
official correspondence are models of pure style, and full of
valuable details. Even during the exciting and rapid campaign
from Chattanooga to Atlanta, he recorded, each month, the
number of rounds his men had fired, and other similar facts con-
cerning the equipment and condition of his army. He has left
behind him a great mass of most valuable papers, classified and
arranged in perfect order, the publication of which will make
an almost complete history of the Army of the Cumberland.

His modesty was as real as his courage. When he was in
Washington in 1866, his friends with great difficulty persuaded
him to allow himself to be introduced to the House of Repre-
sentatives. He was escorted to the Speaker's stand, while the
great assembly of representatives and citizens arose and greeted
him with the most enthusiastic marks of affection and reverence.
Mr. Speaker Colfax, in speaking of it afterward, said : ** I no-
ticed, as he stood beside me, that his hand trembled like an
aspen leaf He could bear the shock of battle, but he shrank
before the storm of applause."

He was not insensible to praise ; and he was quick to feel
any wrong or injustice. While grateful to his country for the
honor it conferred upon him, and while cherishing all expres-
sions of affection on the part of his friends, he would not accept
the smallest token of regard in the form of a gift So frank
and guileless was his life, so free from anything that approached
intrigue, that when, after his death, his private letters and
papers were examined, there was not a scrap among them that
his most confidential friends thought best to destroy. When
Phidias was asked, why he took so much pains to finish up the
parts of his statue that would not be in sight, he said, " These
I am finishing for the gods to look at." In the life and charac-

1

^ €f6 GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS.

tcr of General Thomas there were no secret places of which
his friends will ever be ashamed.

But his career is ended. Struck dead at his post of duty, a
bereaved nation bore his honored dust across the continent, and
laid it to rest on the banks of the Hudson, aniidst the tears and
grief of millions. The nation stood at his grave as a mourner.
No one knew until he was dead how strong was his hold on the
hearts of the American people. Every citizen felt that a pillar
of state had fallen, — tliat a great and true and pure man had '
passed from cdrth.

There are no fitting words in which 1 may speak of the loss '
which every member of this Society has sustained in his death.
The General of the Army has beautifully said, in his order an-
nouncing the death of Thomas: " Though he leaves no child to
bear his name, the old Army of the Cumberland, numbered by
tens of thousands, called him Father, and will weep for him in
tears of manly grief,"

To us, his comrades, he has left the rich legacy of his friend-
ship. To his country and to nnankind, he has left his character
and his fame as a priceless and everlasting possession.

O (atlen at length that lower of strength

Which stood four-square to all the winds that blew I

" His work is done.
But while tht races of mankind endure.
Let his great example stand
Colossal, seen of every land.
And keep the soldier (irm, the statesman pure t
Till in all lands and through all human story
The path of Duty be the way to Glory."

The edition of this Oration published by the author contains Appen-
dices from A to I inclusive, making fourteen pages. Only those relating
to General R. E. Lee need appear here.

I.

November 19, 1870.
Dear General, — I give you the following from memory, having
never made any written note of it before.

It must have been about, if not upon, the 19th of April, 1861, that
Colonel R. E. L£e, First U. S. Cavalry, then staying at Ariingjton, came

GEN. GEORGE ff. THOMAS, 671

to General Scott's office, opposite the War Department, in Washington,
in obedience to a message from the General that he desired to see him.
I was the only person present during the interview. General Scott spoke
for about fifteen minutes, the substance of his remarks being that it was
time Lee should clearly define his position upon the question which was
causing many Southern officers to resign from the United States Army ;
that he had probably already made up his mind, but that he should weigh
well the consequence ; that the cause of the Southern people against the
North could not possibly terminate in favor of the former, and should it
fail, the result must be disastrous to those officers who left the army to
join the South.

Lee listened in silence, and at last replied briefly : " General, I must
go with my native State in what she decides to be best. My children all
own property in Virginia ; all that we have is there. I cannot raise my
hand against my children."

The interview then terminated, and Lee sent in his resignation the next
day, April 20, 1861.

Yours truly,

E. D. TOWNSEND.

GENERAL Garfield, M. C.

n.

Washington, D. C, November 21, 1870.

Dear General, — I send you the following information, drawn from
the records in the Adjutant-General's office.

R. E. Lee recorded his name in the Adjutant-General's office, March
5, 1 86 1, as Brevet Colonel and Lieutenant-Colonel Second Cavalry.
Address, Arlington ; with the remark, " Under orders from Department of
Texas."

R. E. Lee was confirmed by the Senate as Colonel First Cavalry,
March 23, 1861. Date of commission, March 25, 1861, to rank from
March io, 1861. Commission forwarded to him at Arlington, Va., March
28, 1 86 1, and its receipt acknowledged and accepted by him March 30,
1 86 1. April 20, 1 86 1, by letter from Arlington, R. E. Lee tenders his
resignation as Colonel First Cavalry. Received by General Scott the
same day, and sent to the Adjutant-General. Submitted to General
Cameron, Secretary of War, April 24, 1861, and accepted by him the
next day, April 27, 1861. He was informed at Richmond of the ac-
ceptance, by the President, of his resignation, to take effect April 25,
1861.

In the letter of tender of resignation, no reason given.

Fitzhugh Lee records his name at the Adjutant-General's office as
Second Lieutenant First Cavalry, May i, 1861, with the remark, " On

1

67a GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS.

seven days' leave from West Point," at Washington. May 16, 1861,
tenders his resignation. Address, Richmond. Resignation submitted
to General Cameron, Secretary of War, May ai, 1861, and accepted by

I have the honor to be, General, very respeclfiilly, your obedient servant,

L. Thomas.

Brigadier- General (/■ S. Army.

Geneeal J. A. Garfield, IVaikiHgitm, D. C.

III.

ABM-fOTON, Va, April io, t86i.

Generai., — Since my interview with you, on the i8th instant, I have '
felt that I ought not longer lo retain my commission in the army,
therefore lender my resignation, wliich I request you will recommend for
acceptance. It would have been presented at once but for the struggle
it has cost me to separate myself from the service to which I have de-
voted all the best yeais of my life and all tlie ability I possessed.

During the whole of that time; — more than a quarter of a century, —
I have expericnceil nolhint; but kindness from my superiors, 3n<l the
most cordial friendship from my comrades. To no one. General, have
I been so much indebted as to yourself for uniform kindness and con-
sideration, and it has always been my ardent desire to merit your ap-
probation. I shall carry to the grave the most grateful recollecrions of
your kind consideration, and your name and fame will always be dear
to me.

Save in defence of my State, I never desire to draw my sword. Be
pleased to accept my most earnest wishes for the continuance of your
happiness and prosperity, and believe me most truly yours,

R. E. Lee.
Lieutenant-Grnekal Winfield Scott,
Cemmanding United Slalet Army.

IV.

HEADQtIARTERS, RTCHMOHD, April 33, 18GI.

General Orders, No. I.

In obedience to orders from His Excellency. John Letcher, Governor
of the State, Major-General Robert E. Lee assumes command of the
military and naval forces of Virginia.

[Signed,] R. E. Lee,

Major- General.

GEN. GEORGE H. THOMAS. 673

V.

Arlington, Va., April 20, 1861.

My dear Sister, — I am grieved at my inability to see you. I have
been waiting for a ''more convenient season," which has brought to
many before me deep and lasting regret. Now we are in a state of war,
which will yield to nothing. The whole SouUi is in a state of revolution,
into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn ; and though I
recognize no necessity for this state of things, and would have forborne
and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet
in my own person I had to meet the question whether I would take
part against my native State. With all my devotion to the Union, and
the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been
able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my
children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the
army, and, save in defence of my native State^ with the hope that my
poor services will never be needed, I hope I may never be called on
to draw my sword.

I know you will blame me ; but you must think as kindly of me as
you can, and believe that I have endeavored to do what I thought right.
To show you the feeling and struggle it cost me, I send a copy of my
letter to General Scott, which accompanied my letter of resignation.
I have no time for more.

R. E. Lee.

voi« I. 43

THE RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE
BILLS.

SPEECH DKLIVERKD IN THE HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES,

At the third session of the Forty-first Congress, there arose a coa-
Slitiitional question aflecting the riglils of the two houses, January 26,
1871, the Senate passed a bill abolishing the income tax (the limit of
which had been December 31, 1869, but which had been extended by
the act of July 14, 1870J. The House immediately returned the bill,
accompanied by this resolution : " Resolved, That Senate Bill No. 1083,
to repeal so much of the act approved July 14, 1870, entitled ' An Act to
reduce Internal Taxes, and for other Purposes,' as continues the income ,
tax after the 31st day of December, 1869, be returned to thai body, with
the respectful suggestion on the part of the House that section seven of
article one of the Constitution vests in the House of Representatives the
sole power to originate such measures." The Senate asked coirference
upon the point of difference, which was that of the respective rights of
the houses concerning revenue bills, and this the House of Representa-
tives granted.

The Senate and House committees could not agree, and each made
a report sustaining the right and position of the body that had ap-
pointed it. The report of the House conferees closed with this resolu-
tion : " Resolved, That the House maintains that it is its sole and exclu-
sive privilege to originate all bilb directly affecting the revenue, whether
such bills be for the imposition, reduction, or repeal of taxes ; and in
the exercise of this privilege in the first instance to limit and appoint
the ends, purposes, considerations, and limitations of such bills, whether
relating to the matter, manner, measure, or time of their introduction,
subject to the right of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments,
as in oilier bills." The House agreed to the report of its committee.
Pending this report, at the very end of the session, Mr. Garfield obtained
leave to print the speech which time and the business before the House
did not enable him to deliver.

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 675

^ Whenever the Lords usurp upon the known privil^es of the Commons, or they upon
the Lords, or both upon the King, or lastly the King upon them, we may cry good night
to this our ancient Constitution under which we have flourished so many ages." — Preface
to Lard Anglesey s *' PriviUges of the Lards and Commons^* A. D. 1702.

MR. SPEAKER, — Few questions have arisen in this House
of greater importance than the one now pending ; and
I greatly regret that it did not arise at a time when it might re-
ceive a more thoughtful consideration than is possible at this
period of the session. I greatly regret, also, that this difference
between the two houses should have arisen on the bill to
abolish what remains of the income tax ; for I have no doubt
that the best interests of the people and of the government
require the repeal of that tax. But infringements of the con-
stitutional rights and privileges of the House of Representatives
are more likely to occur in cases where the public wishes can
be used to force a surrender ; and hence the necessity of repeal-
ing the tax should not be considered in connection with the
subject now before the House.

The question at issue involves the history, the object, and the
significance of this clause of the Constitution : " All bills for
raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives ;
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as
on other bills." ^ It would be difficult to find any clause in the
Constitution so rich in its historical associations, and of such
vital importance to the genius and spirit of our government.
The Senate has forced upon the House the necessity of pro-
nouncing its judgment on this question, and of asserting, in
clear and unmistakable language, a right conferred upon the
House by the Constitution, — a right which cannot be surren-
dered without inflicting a fatal wound upon the integrity of our
whole system of government. The Senate has passed a bill re-
pealing a portion of a general law for raising public revenue,
and insists on its right to do so, for the reason that its bill pro-
vides for reducing, not for increasing revenue.

To reach an intelligent understanding of this clause, we must
go back to the fountain-head from which the provision was
drawn. I therefore invite the attention of the House to the
source from which this feature of our Constitution was derived,
the constitution of Great Britain.

It appears that from the earliest times until the reign of

1 Art. I. Sec. 7, clause i.

■'TP^

6t6 MUGHT to QRIGIIUTM RSWMmrB mxjuk

Edward III. the Commons alone levied taxes on their own cla9%
and the Lords alone levied taxes on the peers of the ^f«i4in9
But 9ome time in the btter half of the fi^urteeath c^otiiiy, taioel
began to be levied upon bo A peers and commcMieim >%^ liMr
which originated solely in the House of CcMBatinoi^ajqdi:tfi^«f^^
the House of Lords had only tiie power bo five or rdbse)p|Eh
sent In an exhaustive and elaborate review of this si|bj<;»rt«
HallaoGi says, in his '' Constittttional i£btoiy of Eogl^c}.'^^ .y.

^ In oor eailiest PttHamentay leocHtdii^
moned in agreat mttoore ix the sske of relieriiig^tlie Ktog% lieueiuiiaMj
q)pear to have made their seicnd g^uitB of supply witiboi^
nication, and die hder g^meraBjr m a htghef propartjon-dwi tfielbnM&
These itere not in the fbim of laws, nor iiA thef obtain mj teiMl
asMnt from die Kii^ to whom thqr were lendered in wiitlai iaJcpiwwB^
entered afterward on the roll of Bariiament The latest iastattoe^rf' such
distinct grants from the two Houses, as &r as I can judge fixm tfie ioO%
is in die e^^iteentfa year of Edward iU."* [A. IX 1345-]^

He says further, speaking of tl» Commons: -^

''They maintained also diat the Lords cotdd not malke any amend*

ment whatever in bills sent up to them for imposing, directly or indi-
rectly, a charge upon the people. There seems no proof that any
difference between the two houses on this score had arisen before the
Restoration." *

Sir Thomas Erskine May discusses at length the precedents
in regard to originating money bills, and shows that the ten-
dency has been constantly to enlarge the jurisdiction of the
Commons, and to restrict that of the Lords. He says : —

"The Lords were not originally precluded from amending bills of
supply ; for there are numerous cases in the Journals in which Lords'
amendments to such bills were agreed to; but in 167 1 the Commons
advanced their claim somewhat further by resolving, nem, con., ' that in
all aids given to the King by the Commons the rate of tax ought not
to be altered [by the Lords].* "^

This resolution was passed in consequence of an amendment
of the House of Lords reducing the duties on sugar. On the
3d of July, 1678, the Commons resolved: "That all aids and
supplies, and aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are the sole gift
of the Commons ; and all bills for the granting of any such aids

1 Chap. 13, p. 508 (Harpers' cd., i860). * Ibid., p. 509.

* Parliamentary Practice, (London, 1868,) p. 537.

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 677

iuppiies ought to begin with the Commons ; and that it is
the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit,
aad iq>point in such bills the ends, purposes, considerations,
condittons, limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which
ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords."
SL 'Thomas Erskine May makes this comment: —

•* It' '% vaftm this latter resolution that all proceedings between the two
Houfc in matters of supply are now founded. The principle is acqui-
fet bf the Lords, and, except in cases where it is difficult to de-
whether a matter be strictly one of supply or not, no serious
can arise In bills not confined to matters of aid or tax-
ation, but in which pecuniary burdens are imposed upon the people, the
Ixxdr maf make any amendments, provided they do not alter the inten-
tion of the- Commons with regard to the amount of the rate or charge,
whether by increase or reduction." ^

He also says : —

" Thj principle of excluding the Lords from interference has even been
pressed so far by the Commons, that, when the Lords have sent messages
for reports and papers relative to taxation, the Commons have evaded
sending them ; and it has been doubted whether members should be al-
lowed to be examined before a committee of the House of Lords upon
matters involving taxation, although in practice they have been allowed
to attend." «

Within the present century, the Commons have relaxed the
rigidity of these rules in the case of certain private bills, and
other bills where the^ revenue feature is only incidental to the
main object. Under this relaxation the Commons declare that
they will accept "any clauses sent down from the House of
Lords which refer to tolls and charges for services performed,
and which are not in the nature of a tax."

The present practice, as settled in 1678, is thus compendi-
ously stated by Leone Levi, the distinguished financial writer,
who, after reciting the resolution of 1678, says: —

" These and other precedents in Parliamentary practice of a like char-
acter establish the following facts : first, that all bills for purposes of tax-
ation, or containing clauses imposing a tax, must originate in the House
of Commons, and not in the House of Lords ; second, that bills so origi-
nated in the Commons cannot be altered and amended by the Lords ;
and third, that, although bills for imposing or repealing taxes must not
originate or be amended by the Lords, they have the power to reject

* Parliamentary Practice, pp. 537, 538. • Ibid., p. 543.

O78 RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS.

the measure altogether, though this power has seldom, If ever, been {iillf
exercised." '

It must be remembered that the Constitution of the United
States was framed at a time when the only point in contest be-
tween the two Houses of Parliament was whetJicr the Lords
could make any amendment whatever to a money bill, and that
in our Constitution the same point was settled in favor o( the
Senate. The history of this clause of our Constitution ii^both
curious and instructive; and in the belief that it is not generally
understood, I will review it somewhat in detail, as it appears
in the Madison Papers and other records of the Convention
of 1787.

When the Constitutional Convention had been in session one
month, during the course of the debate upon those sections
of the instrument which fix the character of the two houses of
Congress, Mr, Gerry, of Massachusetts, moved " to restrain the
Senatorial power from originating money bills. The other
branch," he said, "were more immediately the representatives
ol the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold
the puriie-slrings. If the Senate should be allowed to orii^inate
such bills, they would repeat the experiment till chance should
furnish a set of representatives in the other branch who will fall
into their snares." Later in the debates, Mr. Gerry "considered
this as a part of the plan that would be much scrutinized. Tax-
ation and representation arc strongly associated in the minds of
the people; and they wilt not agree that any but their immedi-
ate representatives shall meddle with their purses. In short, the
acceptance of the plan will inevitably fail if the Senate be not
restrained from originating money bills." ^

Other members took the same view; but Mr. Madison insisted
that, as the Convention had just determined that the number of"
members of the Senate should be in proportion to the popula-
tion of the respective States, the precedent of the British con-
stitution did not apply, because the Senate thus constituted
represented the people as directly as the House would do. On
this view of the case, Mr. Gerry's resolution was rejected, June ,
>3. ^1^7% — ayes, three; nays, seven."

On the 30th of June the clause relating to the organization of

' On Taxation, (London, i860.) p. 24:1.

■ Elliott's Debates, Vol. V. pp. iSS, 416.

■ Ibid., Vol. V. p. 189. See also Curtis's Hisloiy of the Constitution, VoL IL
pp. 314^/ m;.

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 679

the two houses of Congress was reconsidered, and the Conven-
tion found itself evenly divided on the question whether each
State should have an equal vote in the Senate, or whether the
representation in that body should be in proportion to popula-
tion. It was a contest between the large and the small States,
and for some time the failure of the whole plan seemed inevita-
ble. At that crisis Dr. Franklin, whose wisdom was sufficient
for all emergencies, proposed a plan of adjustment He said : —

" The diversity of opinions turns on two points. If a proportional
representation takes place, the small States contend that their liberties
will be in danger. If an equality of votes is to be put in its place, the
large States say their money will be in danger. When a broad table is
to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the artist takes a little
firora both and makes a good joint. In like manner here, both sides
must part with some of their demands in order that they may join in
some accommodating proposition." *

The debate proceeded for two days, and amid great dejection,
until the 2d of July, when it was resolved to refer the question
to a committee of one from each State, the committee to be
elected by ballot. The following gentlemen, whose names are
historic, were chosen as the committee: Mr. Gerry, Mr. Ells-
worth, Mr. Yates, Mr. Patterson, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Bedford, Mr.
Martin, Mr. Mason, Mr. Davy, Mr. Rutledge, and Mr. Baldwin.
Curtis calls this committee the first committee of compromise of
the Federal Convention. On the sth of July this committee
made the following report : —

" The committee to whom was referred the eighth resolution of the
report from the Committee of the whole House, and so much of the
seventh as has not been decided on, submit the following report : —

" That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the Conven-
tion on condition that both shall be generally adopted : —

" I . That in the first branch of the Legislature each of the States now
in the Union shall be allowed one member for every forty thousand of
the inhabitants of the description reported in the seventh resolution of the
Committee of the whole House ; that each State not containing that
number shall be allowed one member ; that all bills for raising or appro-
priating money, and for fixing the salaries of the oflScers of the govern-
ment of the United States, shall originate in the first branch of the
legislature, and shall not be altered or amended by the second branch ;
and that no money shall be drawn from the public treasury but in pursu-
ance of appropriations to be originated in the first branch.

1 Elliott's Debates, Vol. V. p. 266,

68o RIGHT TO OHrCtNATB REVENUE BILLS.

" 1. That in liie second branch each Stale sluill have an equal

The substance of the report was this: the larger States
were to allow the smaller States equal representation in the
Senate, on condition that the small States should allow to
the House (where the large States would have most power) the
exclusive right to originate money bills. It was admitted on
all hands that this adjustment was a compromise, — that the re-
port of tlie committee must be taken as a whole,

" Dr. Franklin did not mean to go into a jnstification of the report ;
but as it had been asked what would be the use of restraining the second
branch from meddling with money bills, he could not tnit remark, that
it was alwaj's of importance that the people should know who had dis-
posed of their money, and how it had been disposed of. It was a maxim
that those who feel can best judge. This end would, he thought, be
best attained if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate
representatives of the people. This was his inducement to concur in
the report. As to the danger or difficulty that might arise from a
negative in the second branch, where the people would not be propor-
tionally represented, it might easily be got over by declaring that there
should be no such negative ; or, if that will not do, by declaring there
shall be no such branch at all." '

On the 6th of July the clause of the report relating to revenue
bills was retained by a vote of five to three." A month later,
whch several articles of the Constitution were reported to the
Convention by the Committee on Detail, a motion was made to
strike out the clause relating to money bills, for it should be
said that from the beginning there was considerable opposition
to the provision. Some opposed it on its own merits, and
others opposed it in the hope that, should it be stricken out,
it would carry out with it the equal vote of the States in the
Senate. On the motion to strike out, —

" Colonel Mason was unwilling to travel oyer this ground again. To
strike out the section was to unhinge the compromise of which it made a
part. The duration of the Senate made it improper. He did not ob-
ject to that duration ; on the contrary, he approved of iL But, joined
with the smallness of the number, it was an argument against adding this
to the other great powers vested in that body. His idea of an aristocracy
was that it was the government of the few over the many. An aristo-
cratic body, hke the screw in mechanics, working its way by slow degrees
and holding fast whatever it gains, should ever be suspected of an en-
1 Elliott's Detatu, Vol V. p. x\i, * IbliL, p. 184. * Ibid., p. 185.

1

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 68 1

croaching tendency. The purse-strings should never be put into its
hands." i

No one can read this part of the record of those debates with-
out being impressed with the fact that the vote which concluded
it was not an expression of the sense of the Convention on the
merits of the clause itself. For the reasons already indicated,
the clause was stricken out, August 8, by a vote of seven to
four.^ On the opening of the convention the next morning, the
following views were avowed.

" Mr. Randolph expressed hfe dissatisfaction at the disagreement yes-
terday to section fifth, concerning money bills, as endangering the suc-
cess of the plan, and extremely objectionable in itself; and gave notice
that he would move for a reconsideration of the vote." ^

" Dr. Franklin considered the two clauses — the originating of money
bills, and the equality of votes in the Senate — as essentially connected
by the compromise which bad been agreed to." *

" Colonel Mason said, unless the exclusive right of originating money
bills should be restored to the House of Representatives, he should —
not firom obstinacy, but duty and conscience — oppose throughout the
equality of representation in the Senate." *

August II, "Mr. Randolph moved, according to notice, to recon-
sider Article IV. Section 5, concerning money bills which had been
struck out. He argued, first, that he had not wished for this privilege
while a proportional representation in the Senate was in contemplation :
but since an equality had been fixed in that House, the large States
would require this compensation at least. Secondly, that it would make
the plan more acceptable to the people, because they will consider the
Senate as the riiore aristocratic body, and will expect that the usual
guards against its influence will be provided, according to the example of
Great Britain. Thirdly, the privilege will give some advantage to the
House of Representatives, if it extends to the originating only ; but still
more, if it restrains the Senate fi-om amending. Fourthly, he called on
the smaller States to concur in the measure, as the condition by which
alone the compromise had entitled them to an equality in the Senate.
He signified that he should propose, instead of the original section, a
clause specifying that the bills in question should be for the purpose of
revenue, in order to repel the objection against the extent of the words
'raising money,* which might happen incidentally; and that the Senate
should not so amend or alter as to increase or diminish the sum ; in order
to obviate the inconveniences urged against a restriction of the Senate to
a simple affirmation or negative." *

1 Elliott's Debates, Vol. V. p. 394. « Ibid., p. 395. • Ibid., p. 395.

* Ibid., p. 396. * Ibid., p.397. • Ibid., p. 410.

1

682 RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE SILLS.

In the course of th« debate it was suggested that the clause
aa propuscd would restrain tlie Scuate from originating any bill,
public or private, which might incidentally affect tlie treasury.
To obviate this objection Mr. Randolph moved to amend the
clause by substituting the following: ■" Kills for raising money
for the purpose of revenue, or for appropriating the same, shall
originate in the House of Representatives, and shall not be so
amended or altered by the Senate as to increase or dirainisli the
sum to be r;iised, or change the mode of levying it, or tlie ob-
ject of its appropriation." ' ,

It will be seen that the clause as here presented would have
been even more stringent against the Senate than the British
constitution now is against the House of Lords, On the 13th
of August the clause as amended was stricken out.^ This vote
gave great dissatisfaction, and two days later, while another
article was under consideration, Mr. Strong proposed tlie fol-
lowing amendment: "Each house shall possess the right of
originating all bills, except bills for raising money for the pur-
poses of revenue, or for appropriating the same, and for fixing
the salaries of the olTicers of the government, which shall origi-
nate in the House of Representatives ; but the Senate may pro-
pose or concur with amendments, as in other cases." *

The consideration of this amendment was postponed until
August 31, when, with several other subjects of compromise, it
was referred to a committee of one from each State. On the
4th of September the committee reported a proposition giving
to the Senate the exclusive power to ratify treaties, to try all
impeachments, and to confirm the appointments of officers. As
a compensation for these exclusive powers conferred upon the
Senate, the committee reported the next day the following
clause: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the
House of Representatives, and shall be subject to alterations
and amendments by the Senate." *

The same day Gouvcrneur Morris moved to postpone the
clause. " It had been agreed to in the committee, on the
ground of the compromise, and he should feel himself at lib-
erty to dissent from it if, on the whole, he should not be satis-
fied with certain other parts to be settled," *
" Mr. Sherman was for giving immediate ease to those who
' Elliott's Debates, Vul. V. p. 414. * Ibid., p. 4m. ' Ibid., p. 417,

* Ibid', pp- 506, 51C, 511. * Ibid, p. 511.

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 683

looked on this clause as of great moment, and for trusting to
their concurrence in other proper measures." ^

Mr. Williamson said : ** There are seven States which do
not contain one third of the people. If the Senate are to ap-
point, less than one sixth of the people will have the power." ^

Before the final vote was taken. September 8, the clause
was modified by substituting for the paragraph relating to
amendments by the Senate these words, borrowed from the
Constitution of Massachusetts : *' But the Senate may propose
or concur with amendments, as in other bills." Thus amended
the section was adopted, — ayes, nine; noes, two. At the foot
of the page on which this vote is recorded, Mr. Madison ap-
pended the following note : ** This was a conciliatory vote, the
effect of the compromise formerly alluded to." ^

It will be seen from this history of the clause that, while many
members of the Convention favored it on the general ground of
experience, borrowed from the British precedent, a still stronger
reason for its adoption was its relation to other portions of the
Constitution. It was the pivot on which turned the first great
compromise of the Constitution, and the chief consideration on
which the last was settled. It was at first granted to the House
as a compensation for the equal representation of all the States
in the Senate ; and the vote by which it was stricken out came
near ** unhinging the whole plan." And finally its reinsertion
was the consideration for which the large States yielded to the
Senate the exclusive right to ratify treaties, the power of im-
peachment, and the right to confirm appointments. I doubt
whether any other clause occasioned more debate, or played a
more important part in adjusting the great questions of diflfer-
ence on which the fate of the Constitution depended.

I now call attention to the language employed in the British
and American constitutions, on the subject under considera-
tion. The substantive part of the British rule of 1678, on which
all proceedings of the tAVO houses in matters of supply are now
founded, is in these words : *' All bills for the granting of ... .
aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons, .... and
ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords."
Compare this with the language of our Constitution: " All bills
for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representa-
tives ; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments,

1 Elliott's Debates, Vol. V. p. 511. ^ Ibid, p. 514. • Ibid, p. 529.

^^'^84 RIGHT TO ORIGJNATE REVENUE RfLLS. ^^

as on other bills." Dismissing from the comparison the last
clause of each, in regard to amendments, on which the two
Constitutions take opposite grounds, we find in the remaining
clauses precisely the same thought, expressed in different words,
thus; "All bills for the granting of aids and supplies." "All
bills for raising revenue." "Aids and supplies" are granted to
the British government, as to ours, by " raising revenue." Con-
gress, in " raising revenue," grants " aids and supplies " ; or, in
the language more frequently adopted in this country, provides
■■ways and means" for the support of the government. The
Jaws of language will not permit a construction of one of these
clauses which will not apply to the other.

But we arc not left lo the language alone. Two centuries of
undisputed precedents have fixed the interpretation of tlie Brit-
ish clause, and left no room for doubt or cavil. Just two hun-
dred years ago, the very question now in debate between the
two houses of Congress was elaborately discussed between the
Lords and Commons, and settled as this House now asks to
have it settled. The Lords claimed that, in reducing the duty
on sugar from one penny per pound to three farthings, tlicy did
nut " grant supplies," but withheld them. Our Senate now
claims that in repealing a tax on incomes they are not " raising
revenue," but are reducing it. The Lords were not permitted
thus to stick in the bark, and to exploit the meaning out of a
constitutional rule; and since the final adjustment in 1678, they
have never pretended that bills either for imposing or repealing
taxes can originate in their house. There, as here, the clause
was intended to place in the popular branch of the legislature
the exclusive right of originating bills for the management of
the revenue. TTiere, as here, all such bills, whether for an in-
crease or decrease of taxes, were known as "money bills." If
gentlemen will examine the citations made from the proceed-
ings of the Constitutional Convention, they will notice that
throughout the long debate this clause was spoken of as the
clause relating to " money bills." This was the interpreta-
tion given to the clause by those who made it a part of the
Constitution ; and I shall presently show that this was also the
interpretation given to it by the First Congress, and by all suc-
ceeding Congresses for half a century.

I now invite the attention of the House to some of the pre-
cedents in the practice of Congress.

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 68 S

The scope and meaning of this clause of the Constitution was
discussed at the first session of the First Congress ; and many
of the distinguished men who aided in framing the Constitution
itself took part in the debate, and gave their interpretation of
this clause. When the bill for the establishment of the Treas-
ury Department was under discussion in the House of Repre-
sentatives, on the 25th of June, 1789, Mr. Page moved to strike
out from the bill the clause which made it the duty of the Sec-
retary of the Treasury ** to digest and report a plan for the
improvement and management of the revenue and the support
of the public credit."

In support of this motion Mr. Page argued that " it might
be well enough to enjoin upon him the duty of making out and
preparing estimates, but to go on any further would be a dan-
gerous innovation upon the constitutional privileges of this
House."

Mr. Tucker agreed that the objection was well founded ; and
in concluding his speech on the subject said : ** I can never
agree to have money bills originated and forced upon this House
by a man destitute of legislative authority, while the Constitu-
tion gives such power solely to the House of Representatives ;
for this reason, I cheerfully second thef motion for striking out
the words."

Mr. Livermore said: ** The power of originating money bills
within these walls, I look upon as a sacred deposit, which we
may neither violate nor divest ourselves of."

Mr. Gerry said : ** Does not the Constitution expressly declare
that the House solely shall exercise the power of originating
revenue bills? Now, what is meant by reporting plans? It
surely includes the idea of originating money bills ; that is, a
bill for improving the revenue, or, in other words, for bringing
revenue into the treasury."

Mr. Lawrence said " that the power of reporting plans for the
improvement of the revenue is the power of originating money
bills. The Constitution declares that power to be vested solely
in this House."

Mr. Madison said : " With respect to originating money bills,
the House has the sole right to do it."

Not all of the members whom I have quoted were in favor of
striking out the whole clause, as moved by Mr. Page, and the
amendment in that form was rejected; but, on motion of Mr.

686 SIGHT TO ORIGINATE EE VENUE BILLS.

\

Fitzsimmons, the word "report "was stricken out and "pre-
pared " inserted by a large majority.'

I have quoted these authorities for the purpose of showing
that the fathers of the Constitution did not stand on any such
technicality as the special meaning of the word "raising" in
their interpretation of this clause. Throughout this whole de-
bate, the clause was interpreted to mean that the House had the
sole power of originating money bills; and the record does not
show that any member took any other view of the case. It
should be borne in mind that the words " money bills," as used
in this debate, had the broad meaning given to them in Eng-
land, and included bills to reduce as well as bills to increase
the revenue. This debate is important as being the earliest
interpretation of the meaning of the clause under considera-
tion given by Congress itself. The jealousy with which that
Congress guarded the clause is also worthy our thoughtful at-
tention,

A prominent event occurred in the Twenty-second Congress,
which brought out much discussion of this clause of the Con-
stitution. The secession threatened by South Carolina, the
great agitLition- throughout the country on the subject of the
tariff, and the fears of civil war that distressed all our leading
statesmen, led Mr. Clay to believe that he, as the acknowledged
leader in tariff legislation, could reconcile the conflicting ele-
ments by offering a bill for the reduction of duties. In pur-
suance of this purpose, on the I2th of February, 1833, he
offered a bill which has since been known as the " Compromise
Tariff Bill." In introducing it he said: " I owe, sir, an apology
to the Senate for this course of action, because, although strictly
parliamentary, it is nevertheless out of the usual practice of this
body."

Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, immediately objected to the bill,
that " it was a violation of the Constitution, because the Senate
had no power to raise revenue." Mr. Clay insisted that it "was
not a bill to raise the duties, but to reduce them, and therefore

did not come within the reach of an equitable objection

This was a bill to reduce the duties except in a single clause,
and that clause relates to the act" which had not yet gone into

• For ihe ibove history, see Annals of Congress, [Giles and Scaton, Washing-
Ion, 1834,) Vol. I. pp. 615--617, 621, 635, 6j6, 629, 631.

' The act oE July 14, 1832; to go into operation, March 3, 1833.

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 687

operation He did not believe it was the intention of the

Constitution so far to restrict the right of the Senate as to pre-
clude the origination of a bill to repeal any existing law." Mr.
Dickerson, of New Jersey, said: " Such a bill as this could not,
in his opinion, originate in the Senate."

After much hesitation the Senate allowed the bill to be intro-
duced, but in the course of the debate which followed, the
constitutional right of the Senate was very fully discussed, and
many leading Senators expressed the opinion, in the most pos-
itive manner, that the Senate had no right to originate such a
bill. While there was a very large majority of the Senate in
favor of the bill as a revenue measure, yet from the debates it
is doubtful whether a majority would not have voted against it
on the constitutional ground, if the test had been made. No
name can give more weight to an opinion on the proper mean-
ing of the Constitution than that of Mr. Webster, and near the
conclusion of this debate he gave his opinion on the clause
of the Constitution now under discussion, in language at once
so clear and comprehensive that it ought never to be omitted
from any discussion of this question. I therefore quote it
entire.

" Mr. Webster said the constitutional question must be regarded as
important ; but it was one which could not be settled by the Senate. It
was purely a question of privilege, and the decision of it belonged alone
to the House. The Senate, by the Constitution, could not originate
bills for raising revenue. It was of no consequence whether the rate of
duty were increased or decreased ; if it was a money bill, it belonged to
the House to originate it. In the House there was a Committee of Ways
and Means organized expressly for such objects. There was no such
committee of the Senate. The constitutional provision was taken from
the practice of the British Parliament, whose usages were well known to
the framers of the Constitution, with the modification that the Senate
might alter and amend money bills, which was denied by the House of
Commons to that of Lords. This subject belonged exclusively to
the House of Representatives. The attempt to evade the question by
contending that the present bill was intended for protection, and not
revenue, afforded no relief, for it was protection by means of revenue.
It was not the less a money bill from its object being protection.
After 1842 this bill would raise the revenue, or it would not be raised
by existing laws. He was altogether opposed to the provisions of
this bill, but this objection was one which it belonged to the House to
make."

tS8 RIGHT TO ORICmATE REVENUE BILLS.

It will be seen from this that Mr. Webster emphatically de-
nies the right of the Senate to originate a bill to reduce revr
cnuc. Before the close of the debate it became manifest, even
to Mr. Clay himself, that he could not safely risk the fate of hi$
bill with this constitutional objection impending. His friendr
in the House introduced and the House passed a bill in the same
words, and sent it to the Senate, whereupon Mr. Clay announced
that the bill of the House would "supersede the objection of
some Senators, who believed the Senate was not the proper place
for the origin of this bill." On the following day he moved to
lay his own bill on the table, which was done. Four days later,
the House bill passed the Senate, by a vote of twenty-nine to
sixteen.'

I have cited the history of the Compromise Tariff Bill ta
show how the Senate itself disposed of this question the first
time, 1 believe, it ever arose in the naked form of a proposition
to reduce duties.

On the 13th of September, 1S37, a bill was reported to the
Senate authorizing the issue of treasury notes, and on the i8th
of that month it passed that body by a vote of forty-two yeas to
five nays (Clay, Crittenden, Preston, Southard, Spence). On
the 30th of September, the House, in Committee of the Whole,
took up and considered the Senate bill.

Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, said : " He had been waiting for some
who, he understood, were prepared to contest the constitutional
right of the Senate to send to the House a bill of this descrip-
tion. It was a money bill, and by the Constitution all such
bills must originate in the House. The proper course would be
first to take a vote on that question."

Mr. Adams, of Massachusetts, said : " That in his own opin-
ion the matter admitted of no question at all. If ever there was
a money bill, this was one ; but he should make no motion, be-
cause he well knew, if he did, the previous question would be
called and the motion voted_ down. If, however, the gentleman
from Tennessee was disposed to go into the discussion, he
should have his most cordial support. This House had too
long suffered the other branch of the legislature to dictate to
it every measure relating to revenue. For the last five years
not one of all the measures of that character had originated
in that House."

1 For the above hUtorj.ueCongresaianal Debates, {Galet and Seaton,) Vc^DC
Pan I. pp. 46s, 463, 477, 478, 731.

I

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 689

Mr. Haynes, of Georgia, said : " It was now too late to raise
an objection of this kind ; the House had received the bill and
referred it, and it had been reported on. If such an objection
did exist, this was not the place to make it."

Mr. Wise, of Virginia, said : ** He was astonished to hear such
language from the gentleman from Georgia. Did not that gen-
tleman know that at every step, in any, even the last stage of
a bill, when it had received its third reading, if the House dis-
covered a constitutional objection to lie against its passage, it
was never too late to bring it forward? It never could be too
late for the House to receive an objection to doing that which
it had no power to do. It never could waive a constitutional
objection on the ground of laches, ^e moved that the com-
mittee rise and report that a bill like this could not constitu-
tionally originate in the Senate. Thus, in the House, that report
might be adopted and the bill sent back to the Senate, with a
message declaring that the House could ijot act upon the bill."

Mr. Cambreling, of New York, chairman of the Committee of
Ways and Means, said : ** He hoped the committee w6uld not
rise. This bill did not propose the levying of a tax ; it was a
mere anticipation of the receipt of revenue. The Compromise
Act of 1833 had been sent from the Senate .... to the House,

although it proposed an increase of taxes The present

bill created no public debt, it merely anticipated means which

were ample No constitutional objection had been urged

in the Senate, .... and he hoped the House would proceed
with the bill."

Mr. Mercer, of Virginia, said : ** He was astonished at the
position taken by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and
Means. It was not a fact that the Compromise Bill had origi-
nated in the Senate ; it had originated in the House."

Mr. Cambreling said: "To avoid all difficulty, he would
move to pass by the Senate's bill, and take up that of the
House."

Mr. Robertson, of Virginia, ** contended that the House could
not thus pass over the greatest breach of its privileges which
had ever been perpetrated. He could not understand how
the gentleman could be so insensible to the indignity thus
cast on the House. Should they continue to take bills, raising
millions on millions, at the dictation of the Senate or the Presi-
dent, when the Constitution plainly forbade it?"

VOL. I. 44

3

6qo kight to originate revenue bills.

After some further discussion the House bill was taken i
moved by Mr, Cambreling, and finally passed. On the loth
of October the House bill passed the Senate without amend-
ment, — yeas twenty-five, nays six.'

A still more striking precedent is found in the proceedings of
the Senate during the first session of the Twenty-eighth Con-
gress. A strong reaction had set in against the Whig Tariff of
1842, and on the 19th of December, 1843, Senator McDuflie, of
South Carolina, introduced a bill, of three sections, to revive lli£
Compromise Tariif of 1833. The bill is as follows ; —

" Be it eftacted, lie. That so much of tlie existing law imposing duties
upon foreign imports as provides that duties ad valorem on certain com-
niodities shall be assessed upOn an assumed minimum value lie, and the
same is hereby, repealed ; and that said duties be hereafter assessed on
the true value of such commodities.

"Sec 2. And be it further ena<ted, That, in all cases in which the
existing duty upon any imported commodity exceeds thirty per centum
on the value thereof, such duty shall hereafter be reduced to thirty per
centum ad valoran.

" Sec 3. And he it further enacted. That from and after the 3 ist of
DctL'mbcr iic>:t nil duties upon foreign imports shall be reduced to
twenty-five per centum, and fiiam and after the 31st of December, 1S44,
to twenty per centum, ad valorem,"

The bill was referred to the Committee on Finance, and on
the 9th of January, 1844, Senator Evans, of Maine, reported it
back from the Finance Committee with the following resolu-
tions : —

" Resolved, TTiat the bill entitled ' A Bill to revive the Act of the 2d
of March, 1833, usually called the Compromise Act, and to modify the
existing duties upon foreign imports, in conformity with its provisions,' is
a bill for raising revenue within the meaning of the seventh section of the
first article of the Constitution, and cannot therefore originate in the
Senate : Therefore,

" Resolved, That it be indefinitely postponed."

These resolutions and the bill of Mr. McDuffie were debated
every week, and almost every day, from the 19th of January to
the 31st of May; and nothing can be more significant of the
sentiment of the Senate than the final vote by which the resolu-

» For the above hUtory, see Congressioiul Debate*, Vol. XIV. Part I. pp.
iiSa,"S3-

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 691

tions were disposed 6f. To pass the resolutions and indefinitely
postpone McDuffie^s bill would seem to commit many Senators
against the reduction of tariff who were earnestly in favor of
reduction; but the Evans resolutions. were directed solely to the
constitutional right of the Senate to originate the McDuffie
bill. On the 31st of May, 1844, just before the final vote on
the Evans resolution was taken, Mr. Allen, of Ohio, moved
to amend by striking out all after ** that,** in the first line of
the first resolution, and inserting the following : " The duties
imposed on importations by existing laws are unjust and op-
pressive, and ought to be repealed.*' On this amendment
eighteen Senators voted yea, and twenty-five nay. But on the
Evans resolution itself, which was a deliberate expression of
the Senate's opinion of their constitutional rights, the vote
stood thirty-three yeas and four nays ; only four Senators vot-
ing that the Senate had the right to originate such a bill. It
would be difficult to find, in the recent history of Congress,
the same number of names of so great authority as those re-
corded in favor of the Evans resolution. Among them were
Bayard; Buchanan, Choate, Rives, and Wright*

In the first session of the Thirty-fourth Congress there oc-
curred a very able and very interesting debate on another phase
of the constitutional clause now under consideration. In the
House, there was a long and fierce contest over the election of
Speaker, which greatly delayed the course of legislation. While
this struggle was going on, Mr. Brodhead of Pennsylvania sub-
mitted to the Senate, on the nth of December, 1855, the fol-
lowing resolution : " That the Committee on Finance be directed
to inquire into the expediency of reporting the appropria-
tion bills for the support of the government, or adopting other
measures, with a view of obtaining more speedy action on
said bills.*'

Mr. Brodhead proposed to give full time for consideration,
and said that he should then " ask the Senate to consider the
question of the power and the right of this body to originate
the general appropriation bills." On the 7th of January fol-
lowing, Mr. Brodhead defended his resolution in an elaborate
speech. The debate was continued from time to time, and
concluded on the 7th of February, when the Senate passed

1 For the above history, see Congressional Globe, First Session, Twenty-eighth
Congress, Part I. pp. 47, 121, 633.

692 RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS,

the resolution. In the course of the debate the constitutional
clause was very ably discussed. Senator Brodhead argued, first,
that the original draft of the clause, as adopted by the Consti-
tutional Convention, expressly excluded the Senate from the
right to originate appropriation bills; but, secondly, as the
clause was finally adopted, no exclusion of appropriation bills
was named, and it must therefore be inferred that the Senate
possessed the right of originating them.^ Mr. Seward replied
briefly to Mr. Brodhead on the same day. He said : —

" It is true that, according to the letter of the Constitution, appropria-
tion bills may be originated by the Senate, for they are not strictly reve-
nue bills, yet we all know that, in point of fact, they have come into the
place of revenue bills. We make a revenue bill but once in ten or
twelve years, and these appropriation bills are in fact what were intended,
I suppose, by the framers of the Constitution as bills of revenue. They
appropriate the revenue, which is only regulated by a biU passed once in

a period of several years As the tendency of things strikes me,

it is now, and has for many years been, to concentrate in the Senate a
larger share than in the House of the various legislation which the coun-
try requires." *

From the more elaborate speech of Mr. Seward, made a
month later, I quote a few striking passages.

"The government has been in operation since the year 17S9, a period
of more than half a centur>% and never yet has a general approi)riation bill
been prepared, or reported, or submitted to the Senate, or sent to the
House of Representatives from this body. On the other hand, the prac-
tice for this i)eriod of seventy years has been, that all appropriation bills
of that character have originated in the House of Representatives, and
have been sent to this house for its concurrence and amendment. As
this, then, is a proposition made, not only for the first time within our own
experience, but for the first time since the foundation of the government,
we are to presume that it will be admitted that what is proposed is an
innovation, a direct, specific, and effective innovation."

After speaking of the decay of liberty in Europe, and the
despotic spirit which, from the beginning of the sixteenth cen-
tury, overpowered the peoples of Europe, he said : —

" The British government alone presented then, as I think it presents
now almost alone, an instance of the existence of a limited monarchy,
conservative of the freedom of the people. Some maxims which were well

^ Congressional Globe, January 7, 1856, pp. 160, 161. *^ Ibid., p. 162.

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 693

understood in Europe, but were adhered to only by Great Britain, saved
this great, beneficial, and benign result One of those was that the power
of raising and applying money belonged to the House of Commons, to
the people's House, — to the House which directiy represented the
people as distinct from the Executive himself, or from that other branch
of the legislature which represented a distinct interest in the state."

After showing that this feature of our Constitution was bor-
rowed from that of Great Britain, he said : —

" By money bills was understood, as is now understood in Great Brit-
ain, equally bills for raising moneys and bills for paying moneys for the
support of the government. Here, in modem times, we have come to
distinguish between bills for raising money and bills for appropriating
money or appropriating revenue ; but in the British system the principle
prevailed then, and it yet prevails, that the House of Commons, re-
garded as the representatives of the people, had the exclusive power
of originating bills for the raising and for the expenditure of revenue.
It was this power which carried the Commons of Great Britain through
that revolution in which they saved the cause of national liberty and
of constitutional freedom when it was in danger of being overborne
by the influence and power of the Executive and of the House of
Lords."

Mr. Seward then alluded to the compromises of the Consti-
tution, in which this clause played so important a part, and
referred to the fact cited by Senator Brodhead, that in the origi-
nal draft of the Constitution appropriation bills were especially
mentioned as belonging to the House to originate, but that in
the final draft they were omitted ; and on this point he said : —

" I am not going to contend that the provision of the Constitution which
I have read, by its letter, forbids the Senate firom originating appropria-
tion bills ; its letter clearly concedes it, and I concede also that there is
an argument to be drawn from the fact that the Convention discussed the
proposition in both its shapes, and finally adopted the one which we now
find, in which the limitation is applied only to bills originating revenue,
that the Convention may have considered that appropriation bills might
be originated in the Senate.

" But against this argument is one which seems to me perfectly conclu-
sive, and it is this reply : whatever the Convention may have purposed,
and however they may have understood the Constitution which they
have framed, the fact is a stubborn one that the Senate has never origi-
nated an appropriation bill, but that it has always conceded to the House
of Representatives the origination of appropriation bills ; and the House

1

694 RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS.

of Representatives has ne\-er conceded to the Senate the right to origi-
nate such bilb, but has always insisted upon and executed that right
itself. This could not have been accidental ; it was therefore designed.
The design and purpose were those of the contemporaries of the Consti-
tution itself, and it evinces iheir understanding of the subject, wliich was
that bills of a general nature for appropriating the public money, or for
laying taxes or burdens on the people, direct or indirect in their opera-
lion, belonged to tlic province of the House of Representatives,' '

Mr. Sumner also made an elaborate and powerful speech, de-
fending the positions Mr. Seward had assumed. Mr. Wilson, of
Massachusetts, strongly indorsed tlie position of his colleague
and Mr. Seward. As already remarked, the opposite view pre-
vailed in the Senate, and the resolution passed, February 7, 1856.
In pursuance of this resolution, the Senate Committee on Fi-
nance reported the general appropriation bill for invalid pen-
sions. It passed the Senate on tlie 28th of February. Soon
afterward the Senate also passed the general appropriation bill
for the repair of fortifications. Both these bills were laid on
the table of the House on the lyth of April, without having
been referred or debated, thus ending the attempt of the Senate
to change the uniform, unbroken custom of the government
from its foundation to the present time ; and it may still be said,
as Mr. Seward declared in 1856, that up to this time no general
appropriation bill which originated in the Senate ever became
a law.

There may be other precedents than those I have cited ;
but, after considerable search among the historical records of
the government, I have found no others in which the question
now at issue was discussed. .Justice to the history of the sub-
ject requires, however, that I should mention one instance in
which the Senate originated a bill that subsequently became a
law, and which may perhaps be regarded as a precedent on the
other side. It was the act of March 3, 1815, repealing several
acts imposing duties on the tonnage of ships and vessels, and
regulating the relative duties charged on goods imported in for-
eign vessels and vessels of the United States,

By examining this act, it will be seen that it was rather a

regulation of commerce than of revenue, and its object was to

regulate the tonnage dues on ships. It does not appear that,

* For the above quotations from Mr- Seward, ace CoagreHiaiul Globe, Febraary

7. 185^ PP- 375.376-

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS, 695

in the course of the debate, the constitutional question was
raised. The act, consisting of a single brief section, passed the
House on the last day of the session, without debate. There
may be other precedents in the same direction as strong as
this, but I have not found them. I will also remark, that the
custom is well settled that the Senate may originate private bills
that appropriate money to claimants.

In reviewing the ground I have travelled over, the results of
the investigation may be thus summed up : —

First That the exclusive right of the House of Commons of
Great Britain to originate money bills is so old that the date of
its origin is unknown ; that it has always been regarded as one
of the strongest bulwarks of British freedom against usurpations
of the King and of the House of Lords, and has been guarded
with the most jealous care ; that in the many contests which
have arisen on this subject between the Lords and Commons
during the last three hundred years, the Commons have never
given way, but have rather enlarged than diminished their juris-
diction of this subject; and that since the year 1678 the Lords
have conceded, with scarcely a struggle, that the Commons had
the exclusive right to originate, not only bills for raising reve-
nue, but for decreasing it; not only for imposing, but also for
repealing taxes ; and that the same exclusive right extended also
to all general appropriations of money.

Second. The clause of our Constitution now under debate
was borrowed from England, and was intended to have the
same force and effect in all respects as the corresponding fea-
ture of the British constitution, with this single exception, that
our Senate is permitted to offer amendments, as the House of
Lords is not.

Third. In addition to the influence of the British example
is the further fact, that this clause was placed in our Constitu-
tion to counterbalance some special privileges granted to the
Senate. It was the compensating weight thrown into the scale
to make the two branches of Congress equal in authority and
power. It was first put into the Constitution to compensate the
large States for the advantages given to the small .States in al-
lowing them an equal representation in the Senate ; and when,
subsequently, it was thrown out of the original draft, it came
near unhinging the whole plan. It was reinserted in the last
great compromise of the Constitution, to offset the exclusive

696 RIGHT TO ORIGIN A TE RE VENUE BILLS.

right of the Senate to ratify treaties, confirm appointments, and
try impeachments.

Fourth. The construction given to it by the members of the
Constitutional Convention is the same which this House now
contends for. The same construction was asserted broadly and
fuliy by the First Congress, many of the members of which were
framers of the Constitution. It has been asserted again and
again, in the various Congresses, from the first till now; and
though the Senate has often attempted to invade this privilege
of the House, yet in no instance has the House surrendered its
right whenever that right has been openly challenged; and
finally, whenever a contest has arisen, many leading Senatois
have sustained the right of the House as now contended for.

The whole history of the subject leads to the inevitable con*
elusion that this clause of the Constitution confers absolutely
and exclusively upon the House the right to originate all
measures for the imposition, regulation, increase, diminution, or
repeal of taxes. This is the proper meaning of the clause itself,
and legislative interpretation has confirmed it. Though the
language of the clause does not, strictly construed, include ap-
propriations, yet the invari.ible custom of Congress has con-
strued the exclusive right of the House to originate money bills
as applying to all bills for the appropriation of public moneys
to carry on the government

In the light of this history, it is easy to determine the merits
of the question of diiTerence now pending between the two
Houses. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the
Senate may constitutionally do what that body now claims the
right to do, that is, to originate a bill for the reduction or repeal
of any existing taxes. If such a bill be once rightfully Intro-
duced into the Senate for consideration, by what known law
or rule can Senators be precluded from offering any germane
amendment? What, then, prevents the Senate from so amend-
ing a bill that in its final shape it may provide for increasing the
tax? If it be said that the amendment would put the bill in a
shape where the Senate would not have a right to pass it, I
answer that an amendment germane to the subject-matter of the
bill, made in accordance with the rules of the Senate, cannot be
unconstitutional. The unconstitutionality must consist in per-
mitting the introduction of a bill which makes such a result pos-
sible under the rules of the Senate.

1

I

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 697

Let us trace more closely the steps by which a bill to impose
taxes becomes a law.

First, the House has the exclusive right to originate it, and
the Senate can never act on such a bill until it has first passed
the House. Then, the Senate is fully empowered by the Con-
stitution to reject the bill, to amend it, or to pass it without
amendment. In short, a bill thus sent to the Senate is in the
full possession of that body for all legislative purposes. Now,
when both houses have thus exercised their constitutional rights,
and the bill has become a law, it is claimed that the Senate may
originate any bill which can be founded on a repeal of any
clause of the law just passed, provided that clause imposes a
tax. The result of this reasoning would be that, after the first
bill imposing taxes upon the people, and establishing a general
revenue system had become a law, the exclusive right of the
House to originate such bills practically ceased, and the clause
of the Constitution conferring the right became functus officio ;
for the Senate, under the cover of reducing or repealing the
whole or some part of the taxation embraced in that first law,
might introduce any bill thereafter covering the whole subject.
Even Senators must admit that, before the first revenue law
passed under the Constitution, the Senate could not have origi-
nated any revenue bill whatever. They must therefore hold
that the passage of a revenue law conferred upon the Senate a
constitutional right which they did not before possess. The
construction insisted upon by the Senate leads to this inevi-
table result, and makes the clause under consideration a tem-
porary provision, which, being once fully used, ceases to be any
longer a living part of the Constitution.

On the contrary, the House insists that this clause of the
Constitution was intended, like the corresponding part of the
British constitution, to be a perpetual safeguard to the people.
It was intended to hold forever the power of initiative in the
grasp of the House, which directly represents the people, and
whose members every two years surrender to the tax-payers of
the nation all their legislative powers, and to exclude from the
right of initiative that body which is not chosen by the people,
but by State legislatures, which pay no national taxes, and
bear no national burdens. The House of Representatives alone
has a Committee of Ways and Means; the Senate committee is
known by another name, — Committee on Finance. It is here.

6g8 RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS.

and here only, that plans may be inaugurated to provide ways
and means for tlie support of the government.

Again, if the Senate may throw their whole weight, political
and moral, into the scale in favor of the repeal or reduction of
one class of taxes, they may thereby compel the House to
originate bills to impose new taxes, or increase old ones to
make up the deficiency caused by the repeal begun in the Sea-
ate, and thus accomplish by indirection what the Constitution
plainly prohibits.

What Mr. Seward said in 1856 of the encroachments of the
Senate is still more strikingly true to-day. The tendency of]
the Senate is constantly to encroach, not only upon the Juris-
diction of the House, but upon the rights of the Chief Execu-
tive of the nation. The power of confirming appointments is
rapidly becoming a means by which the Senate dictates ap-
pointments. The Constitution gives to the President the ini-
tiative in appointments, as it gives to the House the initiative
in revenue legislation. Evidences are not wanting that both
these rights are every year subjected to new invasions. If. in
the past, the Executive has been compelled to give way to the
pressure, and has in some degree yielded lii^ coii.^titutional
rights, it is all the more necessary that this House stand firm,
and yield no jot or tittle of that great right intrusted to us for
the protection of the people.

1
I

At the second session of the Forty-second Congress the questi<Mi of
originating revenue bills came up in a new form. This is shown by the
following resolution, adopted by the House, April a, 187a, on the mo*
tion of Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts ; —

" Resolved, That the substitution by the Senate, under the form of an
amendment, for the bill of the House, entitled ' An Act to repeal exist-
ing Duties on Tea and Coffee,' of a bill entitled ' An Act to decrease ex-
isting Taxes,' containing a general revision, reduction, and repeal of laws -
imposing impost duties and internal taxes, is in conflict with the true
intent and purpose of that clause of the Constitution which requires
that ' all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Repre-
sentatives ' ; and that therefore said substitute for the House bill do lie
upon the table."

Mr. Garfield made a brief speech on the respective rights of the two
houses, but only his remarks on the new question are here given.

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS. 699

Mr Speaker, — The case now before us is new and difficult.
I think the same point has never before come into controversy.
It raises the question how far the Senate may go in asserting
their right to " propose or concur with amendments, as on other
bills."

We must not construe our rights so as to destroy theirs, and
we must take care they do not so construe their rights as to
destroy ours. If their right to amendment is unlimited, then
our right amounts to nothing whatever. It is the merest mock-
ery to assert any right. What, then, is the reasonable limit to
this right of amendment? It is clear to my mind that the Sen-
ate's power to amend is limited to the subject-matter of the bill.
That limit is natural, is definite, and can be clearly shown. If
there had been no precedent in the case, I should say that a
House bill relating solely to revenue on salt could not be
amended by adding to it clauses raising revenue on textile fab-
rics, but that all the amendments of the Senate should relate
to the duty on salt. To admit that the Senate can take a House
bill consisting of two lines, relating specifically and solely to a
single article, and can graft upon that bill in the name of an
amendment a whole system of tariff and internal taxation, is to
say that they may exploit all the meaning out of the clause of
the Constitution which we are considering, and may rob the
House of the last vestige of its rights under that clause. I am
sure that this House, remembering the precedents which have
been set from the First Congress until now, will not permit this
right to be invaded on such a technicality.

Now I will not say, for I believe it cannot be held, that the
mere length of an amendment shall be any proof of invasion of
the privileges of the House. True, we sent to the Senate a bill
of three or four lines, and they have sent back a bill of twenty
printed pages. I do not deny their right to send back a bill of
a thousand pages as an amendment to our two lines ; but I do
insist that their thousand pages must be on the subject-matter
of our bill. It is not the number of lines, nor is it — I now
respond to my friend from Maine,^ who asked me a question —
nor is it the amount of revenue raised or reduced, of which
we have a right to complain. We may pass a bill to raise
$1,000,000 from tea or coffee; the Senate may move so to
amend it as to raise $100,000,000 from tea and coffee, if such

» Mr Peters.

700 RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS.

a thing was possible ; or they may so amend it as to make it j
but one dollar from tea and coRce ; or they may reject the biH J
altogether.

Mr. Pefers, May not the Senate add other articles ?

If wc refer to the practice of the two houses, doubtless the j
Senate has usually, witliout any question having been raised by '
the House, added other articles. And I do not say that this
would be trenching on our privileges on a general revenue bill.
But the bill on which these amendments were made was in no I
sense a general revenue bill. It was an act relating exclusively
to a single article. There was nothing, either in the title oi
the bill itself, to indicate that it was intended as a genera! reve-
nue bill. Furthermore, it was well known that the proper ci
mittee of the House were preparing a general bill, in which the
whole subject was to be opened for consideration. Considering
all the circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that
on the single clause of our bill relating to but one article of
taxation the Senate has ingrafted a general bill, embracing not
only the tariff generally, but our whole system of internal tax-
ation, it is clear that the ground we now take is not question-
able ground, and it becomes the undoubted duty of the House
to stand on its rights, and refuse to consider this bill.

Mr. Peters. Then allow me to ask the genUeman if the rule is a
fixed one, or one in the discretion of the House.

I will say this: it is a fixed rule. If the House has ever
slept on its rights it ought not to be now concluded from as-
serting them because of its past neglect ; and if there ever was a
time in the history of the government when this House should
reclaim and assert its rights, it is now and here, when, on the
naked lay figure of a two-line bill, the Senate proposes to im-
pose the entire revenue system of the government. If the bill
from the Senate now on your table, Mr. Speaker, be recognized
by us, we shall have surrendered absolutely, not only the letter,
but the spirit of the rule hitherto adopted, and with it our ex-
clusive privilege under the Constitution.

If it be said that this resolution, which the House is asked
to adopt, is an unusual one, I answer that the circumstances
under which it is proposed are equally unusual. It is well
known that the Senate, even in the recess, have been delib-

RIGHT TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS, 701

erately at work preparing the tariff bill ; and they have only
been waiting the slight opportunity afforded by the two lines
which the House sent them, to initiate and take control of our
tariff legislation. It is this course of procedure which the House
is called upon to resist.

SPEECH DEUVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Ann. 4, I

The FoHrteenth Amendment had no sooner become a part of the
Constitution, than Congress began to legislate with a view of carrying
out its provisions. Attention may be rtrawn to the " Act to enforce the
Right of Citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of
the Union, and for other Purposes," approved May 31, 1870; also to
the Act amendatory of said Act, approved February 28, 1871.

March 23, 1871, President Grant sent to the Senate and House of
RcpicscnCotivcs tjiis mcMagc : —

"A condition of affairs now exists in some States of the Union, ren-
dering life and property insecure, and the carrying of the mails and the
collection of the revenue dangerous. The proof that such a condition
of affairs exists in some localities is now before the Senate. That the
power to cdrrect these evils is beyond the control of the State authori-
ties, I do not doubt ; that the power of the Executive of the United
States, acting within the limits of existing laws, is sufficient for present
emergencies, is not clear. Therefore, I urgently recommend such legis-
lation as in the judgment of Congress shall effectually secure life, liberty,
and property, and the enforcement of law, in all parts of the United
States, It may be expedient to provide that such law as shall be passed
in pursuance of this recommendation shall expire at the end of the next
session of Congress."

This message was referred in flie House to a select committee of niiw.
March 38, Mr. Samuel Shellabarger, of Ohio, reported from this commit-
tee a " Bill to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes," This bill
led to an extended discussion, in both houses, of outrages in the South,
the final issue of which was the law popularly known as " The Ku-
Klux Act," approved April 20. Mr, Garfield's speech was upon the bOl
as reported by Mr, Shellabarger, His criticisms, and those of other
Republican members who shared his general views, led to very i

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 703

modifications of the bill, Mr. Shellabarger himself leading the way by
offering an important amendment the day after Mr. Garfield's si>eech
was delivered. To follow all the crooks and turns in the history of
the Ku-Klux Act, would here be both impossible and out of place. A
summary of leading points, and the test votes, will be found in McPher-
son's "Handbook of Politics," for 1872, pp. 85-91. It is particularly
deserving of mention, however, that the martial-law features of the origi-
nal bill, so severely criticised by Mr. Garfield, were struck out

" AH persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the Stats wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due pro-
cess of law, nor deny to any person within its jxirisdiction the equal protection of the laws." —
Constitution^ Art XIV. Sec i.

MR. SPEAKER, — I am not able to understand the mental
organization of the man who can consider this bill, and
the subject of which it treats, as free from very great difficulties.
He must be a man of very moderate abilities, whose ignorance
is bliss, or a man of transcendent genius, whom no difficulties
can daunt and whose clear vision no cloud can obscure.

The distinguished gentleman ^ who introduced the bill from
the committee very appropriately said that it requires us to
enter upon unexplored territory. That territory, Mr. Speaker,
is the neutral ground of all political philosophy, — the neutral
ground for which rival theories have been struggling in all
ages. There are two* ideas so utterly antagonistic that when, in
any nation, either has gained absolute and complete possession
of that neutral ground, the ruin of that nation has invariably fol-
lowed. The one is that despotism which swallows and absorbs
all power in a single central government; the other is that
extreme doctrine of local sovereignty which makes nationality
impossible, and resolves a general government into anarchy and
chaos. It makes but little difference as to the final result which
of these ideas drives the other from the field ; in either case,
ruin follows. The result exhibited by the one was seen in the
United Netherlands, which Madison, in the Federalist,* de-
scribes as characterized by "imbecility in the government; dis-
cord among the provinces ; foreign influence and indignities ; a

^ Mr. Shellabarger. * No. 2a

■-''«■? I^'"*

704 THE KU^KLUX ACT.

W

precarious existence in peace^ and pectiliar calamities fixtfn war<
This is a fitting description of all nations who have carried liic
doctrine of local self-government so far as to exclude the doe*
trine of nationality. They were not nations, But mere lei^^oes
bound together by common consent, ready to &U to pieces
at the demand of any refractory member. The opposing idea
was never better illustrated than when Louis XIV. entered die
French Assembly, booted and spurred, and girded with tte
sword of ancestral kings, and said to the deputies of France»
^ The state? I am the state ! "

Between these opposite and extreme theories of govemmeitt^
the people have been tossed from century to century ; and it
has been only when these ideas have been in reasonable equi-
poise, when this neutral ground has be^i'held in joint occo*
pancy, and usurped by neither, that popuhur lib^ty and natiofial
life have been possible. How many striking iUustrattoaA of
this do we see in the history of France I The despotism of
Louis XIV. followed by a reign of terror, whoi liberty bad
run mad and France was a vast scene of blood and ruin I
We see it again in our day. Only a few years ago the theory
of personal government had placed in the hands of Napo-
leon III. absolute and irresponsible power. The communes
of France were crushed, and local liberty existed no longer.
Then followed Sedan and the rest. On the first day of last
month, when France was trying to rebuild her ruined gov-
ernment, when the Prussian cannon had scarcely ceased thun-
dering against the walls of Paris, a deputy of France rose in
the National Assembly and moved, as the first step toward
the safety of his country, that a committee of thirty should
be chosen, to be called the Committee of Decentralization.
But it was too late to save France from the fearful reaction
from despotism. The news comes to us, under the sea, that
on Saturday last the cry was ringing through France, ** Death
to the priests, and death to the rich ! " and the swords of the
citizens of that new republic are now wet with each other's
blood.

The records of time show no nobler or wiser work done
by human hands than that of our fathers when they framed
this republic. Beginning in a wilderness world, they wrought
unfettered by precedent, untrammelled by custom, unawed by
kings or dynasties. With the history of other nations before

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 705

them, they surveyed the new field. In the progress of their
work they encountered these antagonistic ideas which I have
stated. They attempted to trace through that neutral ground
a boundary line across which neither force should pass. The
result of their labors is our Constitution and frame of gov-
ernment. I never contemplate the result without feeling that
there was more than mortal wisdom in the men who produced
it It has seemed to me that they borrowed their thought
from Him who constructed the universe and put it in motion.
For nothing more aptly describes the character of our re-
public than the solar system, launched into space by the hand
of the Creator, where the central sun is the great power around
which revolve all the planets in their appointed orbits. But
while the sun holds in the grasp of its attractive power the
whole system, and imparts its light and heat to all, yet each
individual planet is under the sway of laws peculiar to itself

Under the sway of terrestrial laws, winds blow, waters flow,
and all the tenantries of the planet live and move. So, sir,
the States move on in their orbits of duty and obedience,
bound to the central government by this Constitution, which
is their supreme law; while each State is making laws and
regulations of its own, developing its own energies, maintaining
its own industries, managing its local affairs in its own way,
subject only to the supreme but beneficent control of the
Union. When State rights run mad. put on the form of Seces-
sion, and attempted to drag the States out of the Union, we
saw the grand lesson taught, in all the battles of the late war,
that a State could no more be hurled from the Union with-
out ruin to the nation, than could a planet be thrown from
its orbit without reducing to chaos the whole solar universe.

Sir, the great war for the Union has vindicated the centrip-
etal power of the nation, and has exploded, forever I trust,
the disorganizing theory of State sovereignty which slavery
attempted to impose upon this country. But we should never
forget that there is danger in the opposite direction. The
destruction or serious crippling of the principle of local gov-
ernment would be as fatal to liberty as secession would have
been fatal to the Union.

The first experiment in government-making which our fathers

tried after the War of Independence was a failure, because the

central power created by the Articles of Confederation was
VOL. I. 45

706 THE KU-KLUX ACT.

not strong enough. The second, though nobly conceived, be-
came almost a failure because slavery attempted so to inter-
pret the Constitution as to reduce the nation again to a con-
federacy, a mere league between sovereign States. But now
that we have vindicated and secured the centripetal power, let
us see that the centrifugal force is not destroyed, but that the
grand and beautiful equipoise is maintained.

No more beautiful thought was embodied in the structure of
our republic than this, — that our fathers did so distribute the
powers of government that no one power should be able to
swallow, absorb, or destroy the others. In this distribution it
is provided that many, indeed most, of the functions of govern-
ment shall be exercised immediately under the eyes of the
people themselves. Let me illustrate this by the system of
taxation in my own State. I have here a statement of the tax-
ation of the State of Ohio for the last year. There was raised
in 1870, under State laws, nearly twenty-four millions of dollars.
Less than five millions of the twenty-four found its way to the
State treasury at Columbus. Less than four millions, indeed,
was used for central purposes. Nineteen of the twenty-four
millions was levied within the townships and the counties, under
the direction of township trustees and city and county officers;
and, in accordance with the general laws of the State, these
sums were expended at home, under the direction of the very
men who specially consented that the tax should be levied.
Twelve and a half miUions was raised and expended in the
townships. Mr. Speaker, although, as in Ohio, more than half
of all the taxes raised are kept in the treasuries of the town-
ships, how often have you heard of embezzlement or defalcation
by township officers? Where in the nation is there so wise and
so honest an administration of afiairs as in the townships, under
the eye of the people who have approved the levy, and who
watch the expenditure of the money? We have sometimes
heard of defalcations of county treasurers, because they live
some distance away from the Argus eyes which watch over
their proceedings. We have oftener heard of State defalcations,
because State officers are still further away. And oftener still
we hear of national defalcations, where the power is exercised
still further away from the people who grant it. I mention this
as an illustration of the character of our government.

The illustration might be extended with equal force to the

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 707

»

administration of justice in townships and counties, where
offences against persons and property are tried before judges
of the people's own choosing, and before jurors who are the
neighbors of the parties, who can administer justice far better
than is possible at distant and remote points, where both court
and jury are strangers to the litigants.

But I turn from these general remarks to the consideration of
those features of our Constitution which relate more immedi-
ately to the subject of the bill now before the House.

I presume it will not be denied that, before the adoption
of the last three amendments, it was the settled interpretation
of the Constitution that the protection of the life and property of
private citizens within the States belonged to the State govern-
ments exclusively. I will, however, fortify this position by a
few authorities which will not be questioned. Mr. Madison
says, in the Federalist : " The powers reserved to the several
States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary
course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of
the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity
of the State." ^

In the celebrated case of Cohens ik Virginia,^ the Supreme
Court takes the same ground; and Mr. Justice Story, in his
Commentaries on the Constitution, quotes with approval the
following passage from the opinion of that court: "Congress
has a right to punish murder in a fort, or other place within
its exclusive jurisdiction, but no general right to punish murder
committed within any of the States." ^

In February, 1866, while debating a proposed amendment to
the Constitution, which in its final form became the fourteenth
article, my colleague, Mr. Bingham, quoted the passage from
the Federalist which I have already quoted, and then said:

"The words of Madison cited are very significant The

fact is, that Congress has never by penal enactment, in all the
past, attempted to enforce these rights of the people in any
State of the Union."* In the same debate he also said: "We
have not the power, in time of peace, to enforce the citizen's
rights to life, liberty, and property within the limits of South
Carolina, after her State government shall be recognized, and
her constitutional relations restored." *

1 No. 45. ^ 6 Wheaton. 424. • Section 1 231.

* Congressional Globe, February 28, 1866, p. 1093. » Ibid., p. 1090.

7o8 THE KU-KLUX ACT.

On the 9th of March, 1866, when the Civil Rights Bill was
under debate, he also said : " The Constitution does not dele-
gate to the United States the power to punish offences against
the life, liberty, or property of the citizen in the States ; nor does
it prohibit that power to the States, but leaves it as the reserved
power of the States, to be by them exercised." ^ And again, in
the same speech : " I have always believed that the protection
in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and
citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still
believe." ^

While the first section of the Civil Rights Bill was under de-
bate, my colleague, Mr. Shellabarger, said: ** If this section did
in fact assume to confer, or define, or regulate these civil rights,
which are named by the words contract^ sue^ testify, inherit^ &c,
then it would, as it seems to me, be an assumption of the re-
served rights of the States and the people The bill does

not reach mere private wrongs, but only those done under color
of State authority; and that authority must be extended on
account of the race or color. It is meant, therefore, not to usurp
the powers of the States to punish offences generally against
the rights of citizens in the several States, but its whole force is
expended in defeating an attempt, under State laws, to deprive
races and the members thereof, as such, of the rights enumer-
ated in this act. This is the whole of it."^

In the same debate, Mr. Delano, of Ohio, now Secretary of
the Interior, speaking of the Constitution, said : " It was never
designed to take away from the States the right of controlling
their own citizens in respect to property, liberty, and life. If
we now go on in a system of legislation based upon the assump-
tion that Congress possesses the right of supreme control in
this respect, I submit whether we are not assisting to build up
a consolidated government, in view of the powers of which we
may well tremble." *

Authorities might be cited to a much greater length. They
all concur in the statement with which I set out, that the power
to protect the life and property of private citizens within the
States was left by the Constitution exclusively to the State
governments.

^ Congressional Globe, March 9, 1S66, p. 1 291.

2 Ibid., p. 1293. 8 Ibid., p. 1294.

* Congressional Globe, Appendix to ist Session of 39th Congress, p. 158.

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 709

Now, three Amendments, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and
Fifteenth, have been added to the Constitution, and it will not be
denied that each of these amendments has so modified the Con-
stitution as to change the relation of Congress to the citizens of
the States. They have to some extent enlarged the functions
of Congress, and, within prescribed limits, have extended within
the States its jurisdiction. I now inquire how far this jurisdic-
tion has been extended.

The Thirteenth Amendment provides that slavery shall never
exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction ; and Congress is empowered to enforce this provis-
ion on every inch of soil covered by our flag. Congress may
by its legislation prevent any person from being made a slave
by any law, usage, or custom, or by any act direct or indirect.
This, I presume, will not be denied ; and Congress has effect-
ually carried out this provision.

The Fifteenth Amendment, the last of the three, says the
rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged, either by the United States or by any State,
in consequence of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
And that, taken in connection with the clause in the main text
of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to regulate the
time, place, and manner of holding elections, arms Congress
with the full power to protect the ballot-box at all elections, at
least of officers of the United States, and to protect the right
of all men to the suffrage within the limit of that clause. On
this point, I presume, there will be no difference of opinion,
at least on this side of the House. In pursuance of this power
we passed the act of May 31, 1870, and the amendatory act
of February 28, 1871.

I now come to consider, for it is the basis of the pending bill,
the Fourteenth Amendment. I ask the attention of the House
to the first section of that amendment, as to its scope and mean-
ing. I hope gentlemen will bear in mind that this debate, in
which so many have taken part, will become historical, as the
earliest legislative construction given to this clause of the
amendment. Not only the words which we put into the law,
bift what shall be said here in the way of defining and interpret-
ing the meaning of the clause, may go far to settle its interpre-
tation and its value to the country hereafter. No thorough
discussion of this clause is possible which does not include a

^p ■•:.

fto roB rv^xLux agt.

hbtoiy of some of Uie leading facts cmmected #ith ftfr w^
and its adoption by Cdagress. I iriU diefefere stite bri^y tte
proceedings of this House on the first >foitn of amendaoMl
proposed on the subject embcaeed in the first secti<Mi of tte
Fourteenth Amendment, as it now stands in the Constitution.-

On the 13th of February, t8€6, Mr. Kngham reported, fifott
the C<Mnmittee on Reoonstructiosi, a j<Httt resolution prc^KN^
tng tiie following am^idment to the Constitution of die Unildd
States : ** Article -^. The Congress shall^ave powm' to mate
ail laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to die
citizens of each State all pri^eges and ioununities of citisens
in the several States ; and to all persons in the severe &atas
equal protection in the rights of life, liberty^ and pmperty." ^

The debate proceeded at great length,* and the necessity 'fbr
increased protection against the hostile l^^ation <A the StsMi
to those who had lately been slaves was strongly uigod. I will
quote a iew paragraphs fcom the debate, to show some of die
leading reasons that were urged for and j^rainst the propositiMNL

Mr. Higby, of California, insisted that this amendment wsis
necessary in order to protect the lives and property of citi-
zens in the South. He showed how, under the Thirteenth
Amendment, the laws of the States might be so administered
as to put black men into slavery under pretence of sentencing
them for crime ; and that without additional power given to
Congress, the general government could not prevent such a
result.^ Others urged the amendment on the same and similar
grounds.

Mr. Hale, of New York, opposed the amendment. He said
that under it *' all State legislation, in its codes of civil and
criminal jurisprudence and procedure affecting the individual
citizen, may be overriden, may be repealed or abolished, and
the law of Congress established instead. I maintain," he said,
** that in this respect it is an utter departure from every princi-
ple ever dreamed of by the men who framed our Constitution." *

On the 28th of February, my colleague, Mr. Bingham, made
a very able and elaborate speech in defence of the amendment.
He based its necessity on the fact that Congress had then no
power to legislate for life, liberty, and property within t)ie
States. He affirmed, also, that the guaranties of the rights of

* Congressional Globe, Feb. 13, 1866, p. 813. * Ibid., Feb. 27, p. 1056.

• Ibid, Feb. 27, p. 1063.

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 711

property and person named in the fifth article of the Amend-
ments to the Constitution were not limitations on the State
governments, but only on Congress. To support this position
he quoted the case of Barron v. The Mayor and City Coun-
cil of Baltimore ; ^ also, Lessee of Livingston v Moore and
others ; ^ he also quoted a passage from Daniel Webster ; ^ and
then said : ** The question is simply whether you will give, by
this amendment, to the people of the United States the power,
by legislative enactment, to punish officials of States for viola-
tion of the oaths enjoined upon them by their constitution." *

In the course of Mr. Bingham's speech. Judge Hale, of New
York, asked him " whether, in his opinion, this proposed amend-
ment to the Constitution does not confer upon Congress a
general power of legislation for the purpose of securing to all
persons in the several States protection of life, liberty, and
property, subject only to the qualification that that protection
shall be equal." To which Mr. Bingham replied : " I believe it
does in regard to life, and liberty, and property, as I have
heretofore stated it; the right to real estate being dependent
on the State law except when granted by the United States."
Mr. Hale said further, ** I desire to know if he means to imply
that it extends to personal estate?" And Mr. Bingham replied,
" Undoubtedly it is true." ^

Mr, Conkling, now a Senator from the State of New York,
during the same debate said of this amendment : " It was intro-
duced several weeks ago, and considered in the committee of
fifteen. At that time and always I felt constrained to withhold
from it my support as one of the conlmittee, and when the con-
sent of the committee was given to its being reported, I did not
concur in the report." ^

Mr. Hotchkiss, of New York, said : ** I understand the amend-
ment, as now proposed, by its terms to authorize Congress to
establish uniform laws throughout the United States upon the
subject named, the protection of life, liberty, and property. I
am unwilling that Congress shall have any such power." ^

I have been thus particular in reviewing the history of this
debate, in order to show the sentiment that then prevailed in
this House in regard to one of the theories which we are now
asked to adopt.

* 7 Peters, 247. « 7 Peters, 469. • Works, Vol. III. p. 471.

* Congressional Globe, Feb. 28, p. 1090. * Ibid., p. X094.

* Ibid., p. 1094. T Ibid., p. 1095.

I- ^

7M 2ZEB

Now; let it be remembaed that ibc ptopOB^ woamAmtiAW9li
a plain* unambiguotts propositioa to cmpoiwer Conip^eiHi W
legislate directly upon the citicens of all the States in regftild W
their rights of Ufe, liberty» and properQr. Mark the action of
the House. After a debate of two weeksi the record of whidi
covers more than one hundred and fifty coltunns of tiie 43ldb^
and in which the proposed amendment was subjected to « i&Mt
searching examination, it became evident that many tending
Republicans of this House would not consent to so tadicat a
change in the Constitutiony and the bill was recommitted to
the joint select committee.

IdbLBmoBAM. TThe gentleman is niistd[en. A motion was made tb
ky Ifaat amendmoit on die table. There were 41 voles in fimw oiF ifat
motion and no against it I voted myself in £nror of a pnstponcBieafcf
bat die measure was not recommitted, fisr I was a member of di#
ccHnmittee and knew what it could da

My colleague is technically right in saying that the measnie
was postponed. Of course the majority (fid not allow it to bfS
laid on the table on the motion of a member of the ttpposSHi
party, and the motion was voted down, as my coHes^e has
said. But the consideration of the measure was postponed on
motion of Mr. Conkling, who had opposed it from the start;
and it did in fact go back to the committee, and was never
again discussed in this House. What is more, it was never
debated at all in the Senate, though it was introduced into that
body by Mr. Fessenden on the same day that Mr. Bingham
introduced it into the House. The whole history of the case
shows that it became perfectly evident, both to the members
of the Senate and of the House, after the House debate, that
the measure could not command a two-thirds vote of Congress,
and for that reason the proposition was virtually withdrawn.
Its consideration was postponed, February 28, by a vote of
no to 37.

More than a month passed after this postponement, or re-
committal, without further action in either House. On the
30th of April, 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment was introduced
into this House, and the first section was precisely as it now
stands in the Constitution, except that the first sentence of
the present text was not in the draft. The new form of
amendment was also debated at great length. The gentleman
who reported it from the committee, the late Mr. Stevens, of

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 713

Pennsylvania, said that it came far short of what he wished,
but after full consideration he believed it the most that could
be obtained.

Mr. Bingham. My coUeag^je will allow me to correct him again.
The remark of Mr. Stevens had no relation whatever to that pro\dsion,
none at all. That is all I have to say on that point now.

My colleague can make, but he cannot unmake history. I
not only heard the whole debate at the time, but I have lately
read over, with scrupulous care, every word of it as recorded
in the Globe. I will show my colleague that Mr. Stevens did
speak specially of this very section.

The debate on this new proposition, which afterward became
the Fourteenth Amendment, was opened by Mr. Stevens, May
8th, in a characteristic and powerful speech. He spoke of the
difficulties which the joint committee on reconstruction had
encountered, and of the long struggle they had had to reach
any proposition on which the friends of the amendment could
unite. He said : —

" This proposition is not all that the committee desired. It falls far
short of my wishes, but it fulfils my hopes. I believe it is all that can

be obtained in the present state of public opinion The first

section prohibits the States from abridging the privileges and immu-
nities of citizens of the United States, or unlawfully depriving them of
life, ' liberty, or property, or of denying to any person within their
jurisdiction the * equal ' protection of the laws.

"I can hardly believe that any person can be found who will not
admit that every one of these provisions is just. They are all asserted,
in some form or other, in our Declaration or organic law. But the
Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation
on the States. This amendment supplies that defect, and allows Con-
gress to correct the unjust legislation of the States, so far that the law
which operates upon one man shall operate equally upon all. What-
ever law punishes a white man for a crime shall punish the black man
precisely in the same way and to the same degree. Whatever law
protects the white man shall afford equal protection to the black man.
Whatever means of redress is afforded to one shall be afforded to all.
Whatever law allows the white man to testify in court shall allow the
man of color to do the same. These are great advantages over their
present codes. Now different degrees of punishment are inflicted, not
on account of the magnitude of the crime, but according to the color
of the skin. Now color disqualifies a man from testifying in courts or
being tried in the same way as white men. I need not enumerate these

714 THE KU-KLUX ACT.

partial and oppressive laws. Unless the Constitulion should rcsm
theui, thoiu S'.atcs will all, I fear, keep up this discrinuiiation, and c
to death the haled freedmeo." '

In the long debate which followed, this section of
amendment was considered as equivalent to the first sectita
of the Civil Rights Bill, except that a new power was addCj!
in the clause which prohibits any State from depriving
person witliin its jurisdiction of the equal protection of thefl
laws. The interpretation of this first section, as given by MrJ
Stevens, was the one followed by almost every KcpublicaBj
who spoke on the measure. It was throughout the debate
with scarcely an exception, spoken of as a limitation of the
power of the States to legislate unequally for the protection a
life and property.

On the gth of May, Mr. Eliot, of Massachusetts, said:
support the first section because the doctrine it declares i
right, and if, under the Constitution as it now stands, Con-J
gress has not the power to prohibit State legislation discrimijiT
nating against classes of citizens, or depriving any persons {
life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying
to any persons within the State the equal protection of the
laws, then, in my judgment, such power should be distinctly
conferred." ^

Mr. Farnsworth approved the amendment, but said that ,the
first section might as well be reduced to the words, " No State
shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro-
tection of the laws," for that was the only provision in it which
was not already in the Constitution.'

It is noticeable, also, that no member of the Republican party
made any objection to this section on the grounds on which so
many had opposed the former resolution of amendment; but
many expressed their regret that the article was not sufhciently
strong.

Mr. Shanklin, of Kentucky, a Democrat, said, "The first
section of this proposed amendment to the Constitution is to
strike down those State rights, and invest all power in the gen-
eral government."* Mr. Rogers, of New Jersey, a Democrat,
took similar ground.^

' Congressional Globe, May 8, 1866, p. 1459. • Ibid., May 9, 1866. p. ajock
' Ibii, May 9, 1S66, p. 2511. • Ibid, p 3538.

* Ibid., Wxj 10, 18661 p. 3S39.

THE KU'-KLUX ACT. 715

These two are the only declarations that I find in the House
debates, either by Democrats or Republicans, indicating that
this clause was regarded as placing the protection of the fun-
damental rights of life and property directly in the control of
Congress ; and the declarations of Shanklin and Rogers were
general and sweeping charges, not sustained even by specific
statement

I close this citation of speeches on the amendment by quoting
the view taken of the scope and meaning of this first section
by my colleague, Mr. Bingham. He said this section gives
power " to protect by national law the privileges and immuni-
ties of all the citizens of the republic, and the inborn rights of
every person within its jurisdiction, whenever the same shall be
abridged or denied by unconstitutional acts of any State. Allow
me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes
from no State any right that ever pertained to it No State
ever had the right, under the forms of law or otherwise, to deny
to any freeman the equal protection of the laws, or to abridge
the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the republic, al-
though many of them have assumed and exercised the power,
and that without remedy." ^

After a debate on this new proposition, which lasted several
days and evenings, the amendment passed the House, May 10,
1866, by a vote of 128 ayes to 37 noes, not one Republican
voting against it It will not be denied, as a matter of history,
that this second form of amendment received many Republican
votes that the first form could not have received. In the Sen-
ate there was but little debate on the first section, and no change
was made in it, except that these words were added at the
beginning of the section : ** All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citi-
zens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." ^

Other changes were made by the Senate in other sections of
the amendment, and the whole, as amended, passed, June 8, by
a vote of 33 to II.

On the 13th of June the House passed the article, with the
Senate amendments, by a vote of 120 to 32, every Republican
present voting for it

With this review of the history of the clause rejected and of
the clause adopted in our minds, I ask gentlemen to consider

^ Congressional Globe, May 10, 1866, p. 2542. ' Ibid., May 30, 1866, p. 289a

;itf TBS KV^ZVX ACT.

die differeiice between the two. Putting the fifth clause of the ■
amendment first, snd, to make the comparison closer, omitting :
thedefinitionof citizenship, the section as adopted reads thus: ,
" Hie Cong;re3S shall have power to cnrorce, by appropriate
legislation, die provisions of this article." To wit: '- No State
shall make or enforce any lawwhich shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life; liberty, or property, without
due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdic-
tion the equal protection of the laws."

And this is the rejected clause: " The Coi^;ra8 shall 1im|«
power to make all laws which dull be necessary and proper W-
secure to the citizens of each State 'all prii^Iegek and Immoi^
ties of citizens' in the several States; and to all persotts m ttk,
several States equal protection in the rif^ts of life, ltt>erQr, WIA
property." - ' ■

^e one exerts Its force directly upon the &ates, layidg ■«•.
strictions and limitations upon their power, and enabUng CML.
gress to enforce these llmitadons. The other, ^Sait r^edilH
proposition, would have brought the power of Congress to beAr
directly upon the citizens, and contained a clear grant of power
to Congress to legislate directly for the protection of life, lib-
erty, and property within the States. The first limited, but did
not oust, the jurisdiction of the State over these subjects; the
second gave Congress plenary power to cover the whole subject
with its jurisdiction, and, as it seems to me, to the exclusion of
the State authorities. Unless we ignore both the history and
the language of these clauses, we cannot, by any reasonable in-
terpretation, give to the section, as it stands in the Constitution,
the force and effect of the rejected clause.

Mr. Speaker, I now inquire to what extent this section does
enlarge the powers of Congress. On the proper answer to this
inquiry will chiefly rest our power of legislation on the subject
before us. The first sentence of the section defines citizenship.
It declares that " all persons born and naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside."

On the threshold of the section we find a conflict of opinion.
In his very able speech, my colleague • has given us his inter-
pretation of this first sentence. He says : " The United States

THE KU'KLUX ACT. 717

added to its Constitution what was not in it before; because
never before was it found in the Constitution in express words
that ail people in this country were citizens of the United States
as well as of the States. This was added, and added for a pur-
pose The making of them United States citizens, and

authorizing Congress by appropriate law to protect that citi-
zenship, gave Congress power to legislate directly for enforce-
ment of such rights as are fundamental elements of citizenship.
This, sir, is the foundation idea on which this section and the
whole bill rest for their constitutional warrant. If right, it
solves every possible doubt and difficulty in every part of this
great inquiry."^

Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to call attention to this statement,
that in putting into the Constitution a definition of citizenship
there was given to Congress a great power which did not be-
fore exist in the Constitution. Can my colleague by any pos-
sibility forget that provision of the Constitution which declares
that ** no person shall be a Representative who shall not have
been seven years " — what? "A citizen of the United States."
Can he forget that other clause, which declares that ** no person
shall be a Senator of the United States who shall not have been
nine years a citizen of the United States " ? Can he forget that
in the first section of the second article it is declared that " no
person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States at the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to
the office of President"? Were there no citizens of the United
States until the Fourteenth Amendment passed? Was my
colleague any less a citizen of the United States when he sat
in the Thirty-ninth Congress than he is to-day? Sir, the citi-
zens of the United States made this Constitution. It was not
the Constitution that made them citizens^ The people who or-
dained and established the Constitution were citizens when they
made that instrument. ^

I know my colleague limits his statement by saying that the
Constitution did not before say, "in express words, that all
the people in this country were citizens of the United States " ;
but I ask him and all who hear me whether this was not as
true before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as it
is to-day. The only doubt I ever heard expressed on this point
was whether slaves became citizens of the United States by the

^ Congressional Globe, ist Sess. 42d Congress, Appendix, p. 69.

was wholly ^H
;ndmcnt ^|

■718 THE KU~KLUK ACT.

act of emancipation. If they did. tlie proposition was
true, before as well as after the adoption of the amend:

I hold in my hand Paschal's annotated edition of the Consti-
tution, four pages and a half of which are filled with references
to decisions of the courts, from the beginning of the cenli;ry
until now, declaring in the plainest terms that all free persons
born or naturalized in the United States arc citizens thcreot
A weak attempt was made in the Drcd Scott case to exclude
free colored persons from the rights of citizenship ; but that
feature of the opinion was in opposition to the main body of
previous precedenEs, and to all subsequent decisions. I will
quote but one or two of the many declarations of our constitu-
tional teachers. Chancellor Kent says: "Citizens, under our
Constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants, born within the

United States, or naturalized under the laws of Congress

Jf a slave born in the United States be manumitted, or otherwise,
lawfully discharged from bondage, or if a black man be bom
within the United States, and born free, he becomes thencefor-
ward a citizen, but under such disabilities as the laws of the
States respectively may deem it expedient to prescribe to free
persons of color." '

In the admirable opinion of Attorney-General Bates, deliv-
ered to Secretary Chase, November 29, 1862, this whole subject
is thoroughly discussed. He says: "The Constitution itself

does not malce the citizens (it is. In fact, made by them)

Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth,
prima facie, a citizen."'

We have recognized this piinciple of citizenship in all our
naturalization laws. We transform the subjects of foreign gov-
ernments into citizens of the United States whenever they com-
ply with the terms of our naturalization laws. The Civil Rights
Bill broadly and fully affirms the doctrine for which I am here
contending.

I remember the able speech of my colleague* in favor of the
Civil Rights Bill, in the spring of 1866, before this Fourteenth
Amendment had been adopted. The first sentence of that law is
in these words: "Be it enacted, etc.. That all persons bom in
the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, ex-
cluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens."

1 Commetitiries, Vol. tl. p. 301, note {edLiion of 1S60). ' Mr, Shollabarger.
* McPherton's History of the Rebellion, pp. 379, 38a

I

I

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 71^

My colleague and I then believed, as I now believe, that we were
fully empowered to make this declaration of citizenship ; and
so the Republicans in this House and in the Senate believed.

I do not by any means underrate the value and importance
of the first sentence of the amendment. It set at rest forever
a vexed and troublesome question. It brushed away all the
legal subtleties and absurdities that were based on the supposed
difference between citizenship of the United States and citizen-
ship of the States ; and by declaring that every person born on
the soil, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is
a citizen both of the nation and of the State wherein he resides ;
it lifted into undoubted citizenship those who had been slaves,
and thus resolved all doubts as to their civil condition. It is
clear to my mind that this had already been done by the pro-
visions of the Civil Rights Bill.

It was held by Mr. Justice Swayne, in his learned opinion on
the case of Rhodes ik The United States,^ that the Civil Rights
Bill naturalized all negroes born in this country who had been
slaves, made them citizens, and gave them all the rights, privi-
leges, and immunities to which white men were entitled under
the laws. The rights of the white citizens were made the stan-
dard to which all others were lifted. But neither the Civil
Rights Bill nor the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment added to the rights already guaranteed to the white citi-
zen by the Constitution.

If the view I have taken of citizenship be correct, it follows
that my colleague is in error when he attempts to find in the
first sentence of this first section of the Amendment the power
to protect, by Congressional enactment, all the fundamental
rights of persons and property within the States, — a power
which had theretofore, without question, belonged exclusively
to the State governments. If my colleague's reasoning on this
point be valid, I do not see how he can stop short of ousting
completely the jurisdiction of the States over these subjects.
He makes the clause go to the full extent of the one which was
rejected.

I shall not be able in the hour assigned me to discuss with
thoroughness all the clauses of this section, but I will notice
them briefly. The next clause is this : " No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immu-

1 I Abbott, 28.

720 THE KU-KL UX ACT.

nities of the citizens of the United States," The substance c
this provision is in the main text of the Constitution, and has
again and again been interpreted by the courts.

Mr. 15ingh.a.\). The first clause in the first section of the fourteenUt
article of amendment, to wil, " No State shall make or enforce any law 1
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of tlie United
States," never was in the original text of the Constitution. Tfie original
text of the Constitution reads, that the citizens of each State shall
be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens of ihe several
States ; which were always interpreted, even by Judge Story, from whom
the gentleman cited in the outset, to mean only privileges and immuni-
ties of citizens of the Stales, not of the United Stales.

I have made no statement which requires this criticism of
my colleague. It is true that the main text of the Constitution
which he quotes speaks of State citizenship; but as all persons,
free-born or naturalized were citizens of the United Sutcs, itj
brings us to the same result as though national citizenship ha4t
been expressed in the section quoted. Indeed, the Supreme'
Court declared, fortj' years ago, that "a citizen of the United.
States residing In any State of tlie Union is a citizen of that
Sute." ^

My colleague," and also the gentleman from Massachusetts,'
have given a breadth of interpretation to these words " privi-
leges and immunities" which, in my judgment, is not war-
ranted, and which goes far beyond the intent and meaning of
those who framed and those who amended the Constitution.
The gentleman from Massachusetts said in his speech: "Con-
gress is empowered by the Fourteenth Amendment to pass
all 'appropriate legislation' to secure the privileges and im-
munities of the citizen. Now, what is comprehended in this
term 'privileges and immunities'? Most clearly it compre-
hends all the privileges and immunities declared to belong to
the citizen by the Constitution itself. Most clearly, also, it
seems to me, it comprehends those privileges and immunities
which all republican writers of authority agree in declaring
fundamental and essential to citizenship."* He then quotes
from Justice Washington's opinion in the case of Corfield v.
Coryell " a statement that the fundamental rights of citizenship
" are protection by the government, the enjoyment of life and

I Gassies v. Ballou, 6 Peters, 761. * Mr. Sli«Uabarg«r. ' Mr. Hoar,

* CongreMional Globe, March 39, 1871, p. 334. * 4 WMhingioii, 371.

I

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 721

liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every
kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety."

Now, sir, if this is to be the construction of the clause, the
conclusion is irresistible that Congress may assert and maintain
original jurisdiction over all questions affecting the rights of
the person and property of all private citizens within a State,
and the State government may legislate upon this subject only
by sufferance of Congress. It must be remembered that Justice
Washington was interpreting the second section of the fourth
article of the Constitution, and that neither he in 1820, nor any
other judge before or since, has authorized so broad a con-
struction of the power of Congress as that proposed by the
gentlemen to whom I refer.

The next clause of the section under debate declares : " Nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law." This is copied from the fifth
article of amendments, with this difference : as it stands in the
fifth article it operates only as a restraint upon Congress, while
here it is a direct restraint upon the governments of the States.
The addition is very valuable. It realizes the full force and
effect of the clause in Magna Charta from which it was bor-
rowed ; and there is now no power in either the State or the
nation to deprive any person of those great fundamental rights
on which all true freedom rests, the rights of life, liberty, and
property, except by due process of law ; that is, by an impar-
tial trial according to the laws of the land. This very provision
is in the Constitution of every State in the Union ; but it was
most wise and prudent to place it in the serene firmament of
the national Constitution, high above all the storms and tem-
pests that may rage in any State.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to consider the last clause of this
first section, which is, as I believe, the chief and most valuable
addition made to the Constitution in the section. That clause
declares that no State shall "deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This thought
was never before in the Constitution, either in form or in
substance. It was neither expressed in any words in the in-
strument, nor could it be inferred from any provision. It is a
broad and comprehensive limitation on the power of the State
governments, and, without doubt. Congress is empowered to
enforce this limitation by any appropriate legislation. Taken

VOL. I. 46

r

722 THE KU-KLUX ACT.

in connection with the other clauses of this section, it restrains
the States from making or enforcing laws which are not oa
their face and In their provisioiis of equal application to all llie
citizens of the State. It is not required that the laws of a State
shall be perfect. They may be unwise, injudicious, even un-
just; but they must be equal in their provisions, like the air
of heaven, covering all and resting upon all with equal weight.
The laws must not only be equal on their face, but they must
be so administered that equal protection under them shall not
be denied to any class of citizens, either by the courts or the
executive officers of the State, It may be pushing the mean-
ing of the words beyond their natural limits, but I think the
provision that the States shall not " deny the equal protection
of the laws" implies that they shall afford equal protection.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to review briefly the ground travelled
over, the changes wrought in the Constitution by the last three
amendments in regard to the individual rights of citizens are
these: that no person within the United States shall be made
a slave; that no citizen shall be denied the right of suffrage
because of his color, or because he was once a slave; that no
State, by its legislation or the enforcement thereof, shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
that no State shall, without due process of law, disturb the life,
liberty, or property of any person within its jurisdiction; and,
finally, that no State shall deny to any person within its juris-
diction the equal protection of the laws. Thanks to the wis-
dom and patriotism of the American people, these great and
beneficent provisions are now imperishable elements of the
Constitution, and will, I trust, remain forever among the irre-
versible guaranties of liberty. How can these new guaranties
be enforced?

In the first place, it is within the power of Congress to
provide, by law, that cases arising under the provisions of these
amendments may be carried up on appeal from the State
tribunals to the courts of the United States, where- every law,
ordinance, usage, or decree of any State in conflict with these
provisions may be declared unconstitutional and void. This
great remedy covers nearly all the ground that needs to be
covered in time of peace; and this ground has already been
covet«^, to a great extent, by the legislation of Congress. The
Civil Rlgtits Act of 1866, as re-enacted by the law of May 31,

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 723

1870, opens the courts of the United States to all who were
lately slaves, and to all classes of persons who by any State
law or custom are denied the equal rights and privileges of
white men. By the stringent and sweeping Enforcement Act
of May 31, 1870, and by the supplementary act of February
28, 1 871, Congress has provided the amplest protection of the
ballot-box and of the right of voters to enjoy the suffrage as
guaranteed to them in the main text of the Constitution and in
the Fifteenth Amendment

In the second place, it is undoubtedly within the power of
Congress to provide by law for the punishment of all persons,
official or private, who shall invade these rights, and who by
violence; threats, or intimidation shall deprive any citizen of
his fullest enjoyment. This is a part of that general power
vested in Congress to punish the violators of its laws. Under
this head I had supposed that the Enforcement Act made
ample provision. I quote the sixth section : —

" And be it further enacted, That if two or more persons shall band
or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or
upon the premises of another, with intent to. violate any provision of
this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen with
intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right
or privilege granted or secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such per-
sons shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be
fined or imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court, the fine not
to exceed ^5,000, and the imprisonment not to exceed ten years, and
shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to, and disabled from holding,
any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Constitution
or laws of the United States."

The sixteenth and seventeenth sections add still further safe-
guards for the protection of the people. For the protection of
all officers of the United States in the discharge of their duties,
and for the enforcement of all the laws of the United States,
our statutes make ample provisions. The President is empow-
ered to use all the land and naval forces, if necessary, to execute
these laws against all offenders.

But, sir, the President has informed us in his recent message,
that in some portions of the republic wrongs and outrages are
now being perpetrated, under circumstances which lead him to
doubt his power to suppress them by means of existing laws.

;24 THE KU-KLUX ACT.

That new situation confronts us. I deeply regret that we
not able to explore the length, breadth, and depth of this
danger before we undertook to provide a legislative remedy.
The subject is so obscured by passion that it is hardly possible
for Congress, with the materials now in its possession, to know
the truth of the case, to understand fully the causes of this new
trouble, and to provide wisely and intelligently the safest and
most certain remedy. But enough is known to demand some
action on our part. To state the case in the most moderate
terms, it appears that in some of the Southern States there ex-
ists a wide-spread secret organization, whose members are bound
together by solemn oaths to prevent certain classes of citizens
of the United States from enjoying these new rights conferred
upon them by the Constitution and laws; that they arc putting
into execution their design of preventing such citizens from
enjoying the free right of the ballot-box and other privileges
and immunities of citizens, and from enjoying the equal pro-
tection of the laws. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt of the
power of Congress to provide for meeting this new danger, and
to do so without trenching upon the great and beneficent
powers of local self-government lodged in the States and with
the people. To reach this result is the demand of the hour
upon the statesmanship of this country. This brings me to the
consideration of the pending bill.

The first section provides, in substance, that any person who,
under color of any State law, ordinance, or custom, shall de-
prive any person of any rights, privileges, or immunities se-
cured by the Constitution, shall be liable to an action at law,
or other proper proceeding, for redress in the several District
or Circuit Courts of the United States. This is a wise and salu-
tary provision, and plainly within the power of Congress.

But the chief complaint is not that the laws of the State are
unequal, but that even where the laws are just and equal on
their face, yet, by a systematic maladministration of them, or
by a neglect or refusal to enforce their provisions, a portion of
the people are denied equal protection under them. Whenever
such a state of facts is clearly made out, I beheve the last
clause of the first section empowers Congress to step in and
provide for doing justice to those persons who are thus denied
equal protection. Now if the second section of the pending
bill can be so amended that it shall clearly define this offence,

were

new I

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 725

as I have described it, and shall employ no terms which assert
the power of Congress to take jurisdiction of the subject until
such denial be clearly made, and shall not in any way assume
original jurisdiction of the rights of private persons and of
property within the States, — with these conditions clearly
expressed in the section, I shall give it my hearty support.
These limitations will not impair the efficiency of the section,
but will remove the serious objections that are entertained by
many gentlemen to the section as it now stands.

I have made these criticisms, not merely for the purpose of
securing such an amendment to the section, but because I am
unwilling that the interpretation of the constitutional powers of
Congress which some gentlemen have given shall stand as the
uncontradicted history of this legislation. Amendments have
been prepared which will remove the difficulties to which I
have alluded ; and I trust that my colleague ^ and his commit-
tee will themselves accept and offer these amendments. I am
sure my colleague will understand that I share all his anxiety
for the passage of a proper bill. It is against a dangerous and
unwarranted interpretation of the recent amendments to the
Constitution that I feel bound to enter my protest.

Mr. Shellabarger. Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is as
sincerely convinced in regard to the proposition that he has been
contending for as a man ever was. And I want, therefore, to have the
benefit of his candid reply to a suggestion which I will now make, and
which it may take perhaps a minute or two to state.

I understand that the effect of what he says is, that as the first section
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is a negation upon the
power of the States, and that as the fifth section of that amendment only
authorizes Congress to enforce the provisions thereof, therefore Congress
has no power by direct legislation to secure the privileges and immu-
nities of citizenship, because the provision in each section is in the form
of a mere negation. Now what I want to ask his attention to is this.
First, he will recognize that by virtue of citizenship under the old
Constitution there was no power in Congress to touch the question of
the elective franchise ; that was referred by the old Constitution to the
clause which said that electors should be those who were electors for the
most numerous branch of the State legislature. Now, then, the Fifteenth
Amendment was also a mere negation upon the powers of the States
and of the United States, saying that no State nor the United States
shall take away the right to vote on account of color, race, &c. That
also is another negation. The old clause in the Constitution in regard

1 Mr. Shellabarger.

726 THE KU-KLUX ACT. ^

to elections did not give Congress the power to touch the question u 1
to who should vote, but simply gave ihem power to regulate the time, j
place, and manner of casting the vote by those who could vote under |
State author) ly. Now, 1 ask my colleague's attention to this. We have J
passed here an act which enforces the Fifteenth Ameodmeni, which 1
amendment was a mere negation also upon the power of the States, It J
is provided in the first section of that act. that all citizens of the United j
States shall have the right to go into the States from a mere negation, to '
say who shall vole at township and otlier elections. Then, under the
Fifteenth Amendment, he goes directly to the citizen and pimishes the
man who deprives aoy one of the right to vole, which he gets under
federal law, and in contravention of the consiiiutions of one half of the
Slates in the Union, as my learned colleague said the other day. I pusb I
him now, and demand that he shall push hb logic lo its consequences.

If the case stands in all respects exactly as my colleague puts
it, he might drive me to the conclusion that some of tlie pro-
visions of the enforcement act are unconstitutional; but I do
not admit either the premises or the conclusions. My colleague
very well remembers that many distinguished men in this House j
and in the Senate claimed that the right of suffrage was in the 1
old Constitution without this Fifteenth Amendment,

Mr. Shellabarger. And many denied it

It makes no difference who denied it; the fact is, that it has
again and again been elaborately argued upon this floor that
the clause in the main text which gives to Congress the power
to regulate the time, place, and manner of holding elections,
carried with it the whole question of suffrage. I was never
able to believe that this clause went so far; but I did believe,
and I do now believe, that it goes so far that, with the Fifteenth
Amendment superadded. Congress is armed with more than a
mere negative power, and had the right to pass the enforce-
ment law of May last.

But I call my colleague's attention to the peculiar language
of the Fifteenth Amendment. It is not, as his remarks imply,
a mere prohibition to the State, a simple negatioti of power.
It is a double prohibition, reaching, in terms, both the State
and the United States. This is the language : —

" Article XV. Sec, i. The right of citizens of the United States to
vote shall not he denied or abridged by the United States, or by any
State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

"Sec. a. The Congress shall have power to enforce this aitide bf
^propriate legislation."

I
I

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 727

This double prohibition Congress may enforce.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of the House to the
third section of the bill. I am not clear as to the intention of
the committee, but, if I understand the language correctly, this
section proposes to punish citizens of the United States for
violating State laws. If this be the meaning of the provision,
then whenever any person violates a State law the United
States may assume jurisdiction of his offence. This would
virtually abolish the administration of justice under State law.
In so far as this section punishes persons who under color of
any State law shall deny or refuse to others the equal pro-
tection of the laws, I give it my cheerful support ; but when
we provide by Congressional enactment to punish a mere viola-
tion of a State law, we pass the line of constitutional authority.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is one provision in the fourth section
which appears to me both unwise and unnecessary. It is pro-
posed, not only to authorize the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus^ but to authorize the declaration
of martial law in the disturbed districts.

I do not deny, but I affirm, the right of Congress to author-
ize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
whenever in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety
may require it. Such action has been and may again be
necessary to the safety of the republic ; but I call the attention
of the House to the fact, that never but once in the history of
this government has Congress suspended the great privilege of
that writ, and then it was not done until two years of war had
closed all the ordinary tribunals of justice in the rebellious
districts, and the great armies of the Union, extending from
Maryland to the Mexican line, were engaged in a death strug-
gle with the armies of the rebellion. It was not until the 3d
of March, 1863, that the Congress of the United States found
the situation so full of peril as to make it their duty to suspend
this greatest privilege enjoyed by Anglo-Saxon people. Are
we ready to say that an equal peril confronts us to-day?

My objection to authorizing this suspension implies no dis-
trust of the wisdom or patriotism of the President. I do not
believe he would employ this power were we to confer it upon
him ; and if he did employ it, I do not doubt he would use it
with justice and wisdom. But what we do on this occasion will
be quoted as a precedent hereafter, when other men with other

728 THE KU-KLUX ACT. ^H

purposes may desire to confer this power on another Fresidentil
for purposes that may aot aJd in securing public liberty andfl
public peace. I

Again, this section provides' no safeguard for citizens whdj
may be arrested during the suspension of tlie writ. There nfl
no limit to the time during which men may be held as prisoor^
ers. Nothing in the section requires them to be delivered oveffl
to the courts. Nothing in it gives them any other protectiona
than the will of the commander who orders their arrest. Thfifl
law of March 3, 1863, provided that, whenever the privileges ofil
the writ were suspended, all persons arrested other tlian prison-fl
ers of war should be brought before the grand jury of soraej
District or Circuit Court of the United States, and if no indict- a
ment should be found against them they must, on the discharge*
of tlie grand jury, be immediately discharged from arrest; andl
the of^cer who should detain any unindicted person beyond tha^
limit was liable to fine and imprisonment. The law of March 3, j
1863, was a temporary act, and expired with the rebellion. It 1
is not contained in Brightly's Digest, and is no longer in force:!
Should the writ be suspended, I shall ask the House to re-l|
enact the second section of the law of 1863.

But, sir, this fourth section goes a hundred bowshots farther
than any similar legislation of Congress in the wildest days of
the rebellion. It authorizes the declaration of martial law.
We are called upon to provide by law for the suspension of all
law! Do gentlemen remember what martial law is? Refer to
the digest of opinions of the Judge Advocate General of the
United States, and you will find a terse definition, which gleams
like the flash of a sword-blade. The Judge Advocate says,
" Martial law is the will of the general who commands the
army." And Congress is here asked to declare martial law!
Why, sir, it is the pride and boast of England that martial law
has not existed in that country since the Petition of Right in
the thirty-first year of Charles II. Three years ago the Lord
Chief Justice of England came down from the high court over
which he was presiding, to review the charge of another judge
to a grand jury; and he there announced that the power to
declare martial law no longer exists in England. In 1867 the
same judge, in the case of The Queen v. Nelson, uttered the
sentiment, that there is no such law in existence as martial law,
and DO power in the crown to proclaim it

THE KU'KLUX ACT. 729

In a recent treatise entitled " The Nation," a work of great
power and research, the author, Mr. Mulford, says: —

"The declaration of martial law, or the suspension of the habeas
corpusy is the intermission of the ordinary course of law, and of the tri-
bunals to which all appeal may be made. It places the locality included
in its operations no longer under the government of law. It interrupts
the process of rights, and the procedure of courts, and restricts the inde-
pendence of civil administration. There is substituted for these the
intent of the individual. To this there is in the civil order no formal
limitation. In its immediate action, it allows beyond itself no obligation,
and acknowledges no responsibility. Its command or its decree is the
only law ; its movement may be secret, and its decisions are open to the
inquiry of no judge and the investigation of no tribunal. There is no
positive power which may act, or be called upon to act, to stay its ca-
price, or to check its arbitraiy career, since judgment and execution are
in its own command, and the normal action and administration is sus-
pended, and the organized force of the whole is subordinate to it." ^

The Supreme Court, in Ex parte Milligan, examined the
doctrine that in time of war the commander of an armed force
has power within the lines of the military district to suspend all
civil rights, and subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule
of his will. Mr. Justice Davis, who delivered the opinion of
the court, said : —

" If this position is sound to the extent claimed, then when war exists,
foreign or domestic, and the country is subdivided into military depart-
ments for mere convenience, the commander of one of them can, if he
chooses, within his limits, on the plea of necessity, with the approval of
the Executive, substitute military force for and to the exclusion of the
laws, and punish all persons as he thinks right and proper, without fixed
or certain rules.

" The statement of this proposition shows its importance ; for, if true,
republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty regu-
lated by law. Martial law established on such a basis destroys every
guaranty of the Constitution, and effectually renders the ' military inde-
pendent of and superior to the civil power ' ; the attempt to do which
by the king of Great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offence
that they assigned it to the world as one of the causes which impelled
them to declare their independence. Civil liberty and this kind of martial
law cannot endure together ; the antagonism is irreconcilable ; and, in the
conflict, one or the other must perish Martial law cannot arise

1 The Nation, by K Mulford, pp. 185, 186.

730 THE KU-KLUX ACT.

from a threatened invasion. The necessily must be actual and present tj

the invasion real, such as etTectually closes the courts and deposes t

civil administration Martial rule can never exist where the cour

are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurii^fl
diction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."'

Though four of the judges dissented from some of the opin-1
ions expressed by the court, the judges were unanimous in th« J
decree that was made. Even the dissenting judges united in al
declaration that martial law can be authorized only in time c
war, and for the purpose of punishing crimes against the secu- J
rity and safety of the national forces. And no member of the I
court gave the least support to the proposition that martial lawl
could be declared to punish citizens of the United States, where!
the courts of the United States were open, and where war, by '
its flaming presence, has not made the administration of justice
difficult or frnpossible. Chief Justice Chase, who delivered the
dissenting opinion, in which all the dissenting judges concurred,
said : — J

Martial law proper " is called into action by Congress, or temporarily, \
when the action of CnriL^ess cannot he inviti:d, and in the rase of justi-
fying or excusing peril, by the President, in times of insurrection or inva-
sion, or of civil or foreign war, within districts or localities where ordinary
law no longer adequately secures public safety and private rights.

" We think that the power of Congress, in such times and in such lo-
calities, to authorize trials for crimes against the security and safety of
the national forces, may be derived from its constitutional authority to
raise and support armies and to declare war, if not from its constitu-
tional authority to provide for governing the national forces." *

I have quoted not only the opinion of the court, but that of
the dissenting judges, for the purpose of exhibiting the una-
nimity of the court on the main questions relating to martial
law. I cannot think that this House will, at this time, take such
an extreme and unprecedented measure as that here proposed.

Sir, this provision means war, or it means nothing; and I ask
this House whether we are now ready to take that step? Shall
we

"Cry ' Havock.' and let slip the dogs of war"?

I have taken a humble part in one war, and I hope I shall

always be ready to do any duty that the necessities of the coun-

> 4 Wallace, \i^--\x]. * IbkL, 143.

THE KU-KLUX ACT. 731

try may require of me ; but I am not willing to talk war or to
declare war in advance of the terrible necessity. Are there no
measures within our reach which may aid in preventing war?
When a savage war lately threatened our Western frontiers, we
sent out commissioners of peace in the hope of avoiding war.
Have we done all in our power to avoid that which this section
contemplates? I hope the committee will bring in a compan-
ion measure that looks toward peace, and enable us to send the
olive branch with the sword.

I hope this House will grant general amnesty to all except
those who held high official trust under the United States, and
then, breaking their oaths, went into rebellion. We should en-
list both the pride and the selfishness of the people on the side
of good order and peace. But I remind gentlemen that we
have not even an indication or suggestion from the President
that such a remedy as martial law is needed ; and yet we are
called upon to authorize the suspension, not only of the great
writ, but of all laws, and that, too, in advance of any actual
necessity for it. I know that the bill states the circumstances
under which martial law may be declared ; but why should we
now alarm the country by this extreme measure?

Mr. Shellabarger. Because Congress may not be in session when
the emergency arises.

When neither the courts nor the President, with the army
and navy to aid in enforcing the laws, can keep the peace, the
President will be justified in calling Congress together. No
stronger reason for convening Congress could arise than the
necessity for martial law.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have only to say that, within
the limits of our power, I will aid in doing all things that are
necessary to enforce the laws of the United States, to protect
and defend every officer of the government in the free and full
exercise of all his functions, and to secure to the humblest citi-
zen the fullest enjoyment of all the privileges and immunities
granted him by the Constitution, and to demand for him the
equal protection of the laws. All this can be done by this bill
when amended as I have ventured to suggest

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN MOZART HALL, CINCINNATI,

August 34. 1S71.

The gubernatorial candidates in the Ohio campaign of 1S71
Edward F. Noyes, of Cincinnati, Republican, and George W. McCookj
of Sleubenvillc, Democrat Tlie canvass was one of unusual interc
owing mainly to the Democratic party of Ohio having made the so-calledl
"new departure." The following is the new deijariure resolution of*
the State Convention, adopted at Columbus, June i, 1871, which is dis-
cussed below: " That, denouncing the extraordinary nieaas by which
they were brought about, we recognize as accomplished facts the three
amendmeuls in fart to the Constitution, recently adopted, and regard
the same as no longer political issues before the country." This " de-
parture " was made under the leadership of C. L. Vallandigham, who
died in consequence of an accident before the campaign fairly opened.

FELLOW-CITIZENS, — The State Central Committee has
assigned to me the duty of opening the campaign of 1871
in this city, I am the more happy to meet you because you
have a special interest in the campaign this fall, growing out of
the fact that a distinguished citizen of your city is made the
standard-bearer of one of the great parties. It is fitting that
here, at his home, so early in the campaign, his fellow-citizens
and neighbors should meet together to consider the work that
he is engaged in, to take into account its bearings, and to scru-
tinize the ideas that are involved in this struggle. It is fitting
that the candidate should have been taken this year from the
city of Cincinnati,

You are, perhaps without all of you being aware of it, the
recipients of an honor this year that you never had before, and
will probably never have again. A curious calculation has

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871, 733

been made within the past few weeks, at the Coast Survey
Office in Washington, to ascertain the geographical centre of
our territory, and also the centre of our population, and with
this result The geographical centre of the United States, not
considering Alaska, is not far from this latitude, and about a
hundred miles east of the western line of the State of Kansas,
or about two hundred miles west of the city of St. Joseph.
The centre of gravity upon which the surface of our territory,
loaded with its population, would balance, was found to be
about forty-five miles northeast of Cincinnati, that is, two or
three miles south of the village of Wilmington, in Clinton
County. It was there in the month of June, 1870. I shall take
it for granted that by the 24th of August, 1871, the centre has
worked its way to Mozart Hall ; and therefore it seems to me
very proper that the candidate for Governor should have been
selected from this city, and that so large an audience should
have been assembled in this centre of gravity to consider the
great topics of the day.

It is one of the misfortunes of our times that the current of
public thought drifts so strongly in the direction of national
affairs that the condition and interests of the State are almost
wholly omitted in our political discussions. In the two party
conventions lately held in Columbus, I find only a single brief
reference made in either of them to State topics. Twenty reso-
lutions were passed on national affairs, and one sentence only in
regard to Ohio. And yet it will not be denied that the State
government touches the citizen and his interests twenty times
where the national government touches him once. For the
peace of our streets and the health of our cities ; for the admin-
istration of justice in nearly all that relates to the security of
persons and property, and the punishment of crime; for the
education of our children and the care of unfortunate and de-
pendent citizens ; for the assessment and collection of much the
larger portion of our direct taxes and for the proper expendi-
ture of the same, — for all this, and much more, we depend
upon the honesty and wisdom of our General Assembly, and
not upon the Congress at Washington. In these lines espe-
cially are the recent developments of social science being made
in other countries; yet the doings and sayings of Congress
and the national administration form the staple of all our po-
litical discussions, to the exclusion of these topics. I hope the

^•^

754 TBM OBIO CAMPAIGN OF 189A.

tiine may come when, in tbe election of a Governor and other
State officersi and of the members of a new Iqjisiatttre^ political
parties in Ohio will let Presidents and Congressmen alon^, and
will direct their discussions to the great and manifold iafeerests
of our State.

Nowhere can there be found a more triumphant vindication
of the wisdom of that system of government which is adminis-.
tered by the people and for the people than in one of the well*
regulated States of our Union. Consider, for example die
administration of justice in our townships and counties* irii^e
offences against persons and property are tried before judges of
the people's own choosing, and before jurors w1k> are neighbors
of the parties, and who can administer justice fiu* better than is
possible at distant or remote points, where bodi court and jury
are strangers. Consider, also, our plan of managing the finan-
ces of Ohio. Last year, under our State laws, taxes were levied
to the amount of nearly twenty-four millions of dollars. Less
than five millions of the twenty-four found Aeir way to the
State treasury at Columbus. Less than four millions, indeed,
were used for general State purposes. Nineteen of the twenty-
four millions were levied under the direction of township, city,
and county officers, and expended at home under the direction
of the very men who specially consented that the tax should be
levied. Twelve and a half millions were raised and expended
in the townships. For the improvement of our laws and the
advancement of the State in all that contributes to the security
and prosperity of its people, the best efforts of its most thought-
ful citizens should be invoked.

I have said that neither of the recent State political conven-
tions has made more than a single reference to State affairs. I
rejoice that in that reference they agree upon a new constitution
for Ohio. Though no reasons were given and no remarks were
made on the subject, yet both conventions have recommended
the calling of a convention to revise the constitution of the State.
Since then, however, Judge R. P. Ranney, of Cleveland, has chal-
lenged the wisdom of this action, and has asked the Republican
committee to show cause why a new constitution should be
framed. This is a proper call, though the Judge might have
addressed the question with equal propriety to the Democratic
committee. Not assuming to speak for others, I will give some
of the reasons why I am in favor of calling a convention.

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. 735

The wisdom of that provision of our present constitution which
submits the question of calling a new convention to the people
each twentieth year, was ably vindicated in 1851 by Judge Ran-
ney, who was a member of the constituent convention from
Trumbull County. Following the doctrine of Jefferson, that it
is inconsistent with the spirit of American institutions for one
generation to bind another without its consent, he insisted that
at least once in each generation the fundamental law of Ohio
should be recommitted to the judgment of the people, without
the previous permission of two thirds of the legislature. He
held that, though the legislature might at any time submit to
the people proposals for special amendments, or for a general
revision, still such proposals would usually come from one polit-
ical party, and would not, therefore, be likely to receive the fair
and unprejudiced judgment of the whole people. He held, fur-
thermore, that it was reasonable to assume that twenty years of
growth in population, wealth, and intelligence would develop
new wants and new dangers to such an extent that the people
themselves ought to take the initiative in revising their funda-
mental law, and providing new safeguards for the future.

Now there has never been in the history of our State, and
possibly may never be again, a period of twenty years filled
with such momentous events as the twenty years since Judge
Ranney offered these wise suggestions. During that period
great and worthy progress has indeed been made in many direc-
tions ; but many new and grave dangers to public liberty have
also arisen, — dangers which were not foreseen in 1851. The
tremendous growth of corporations, and the power they are
wielding over States and legislative bodies was then almost
unknown. The dangers which may threaten us from this source
are not adequately provided against in our present constitution.
At the present rate of growth and consolidation, it will not be
long before the greatest of our States may be less powerful than
some of the corporations it has created. The day may come
when some single corporation, managed by men outside of
Ohio, may be more potent within her boundaries than the Gen-
eral Assembly itself. Do the people of Ohio think it wise tp
postpone action on this question for twenty years longer? Let
it be remembered that, in the almost even balance of political
parties in Ohio, our constitution is practically not amendable
by the ordinary method.

^t 736 T//£ OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. ^^^

There is another danger against which the people cannot forc-
fcnd themselves a day too soon. The last twenty years have '
witnessed the most alarming progress in the various devices by
which bribery and corruption have found their way to the polls
and into legislative bodies. Every citizen of Ohio may be justly
proud of the fact thai hitherto neither the ballot-box, nor the
General Assembly, nor the courts of our State, have been tainted I
with this pollution. But who dare affirm that its westward pro-
gress will not reach us before 1891? While there is yet time,
let us build the dikes, and prepare to keep out the rising flood.
In the new constitution of Illinois, adopted last year, bribery at
the polls and in the legislature is rendered almost impossible.
No form of constitutional enactment can purify the hearts of ,
villains; but I hciicvc the provisions of that constitution have
made it exceedingly unsafe for a man to practise his rascality in ,
the General Assembly of Illinois. It is said that the new pro-
visions drove the lobby from Springfield last winter; let us shut
the door before it reaches Columbus,

The State needs greater safeguards on the subject of taxation, |
and a readjustment of its revenue system. It is estimated that
the aggregate taxation of the American people, for national,
State, and local purposes, amounts each year to more than one
third of the principal of our national debt. This taxation, dis-
tributed per capita, amounts to nearly twenty dollars to each
inhabitant, — a higher rate than any modern nation has ever
before maintained in time of peace. The burden of the national
taxes has been rapidly and constantly diminishing during' the
last five years, but the taxes of cities, towns, and counties, under
State laws, have been increasing enormously. Comparing our
taxes in Ohio in 1863 with those for 1870, and omitting the
special war taxes of the former year, I find that the levies for
State purposes have increased about forty per cent, — not an
exorbitant increase considering the general rise in prices and
the condition of the currency. But during that period levies
for county and other local purposes have increased nearly two
hi;ndrcd and seventy-five per cent. In seven years our local
taxation has risen from six and three quarters millions to eigh-
teen and three quarters millions. Governor Hayes recently
called the attention of the General Assembly to this growing
evil, which is no doubt the result of that general spirit of prodi-
gality and extravagance which has everywhere prevailed since

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. 737

the war. The limitation of local debt and taxation is now left
to the General Assembly. It should be placed in the fundamen-
tal law, above the reach of party influence, where the pressure
of local schemes of taxation and expenditure cannot come. No
one can read the article of the new constitution of Illinois on
revenues and taxation without congratulating the people of that
State on their fortunate escape from the evils that now afflict us.

In many particulars the theory of representative government
has been improved during the last twenty years. It will not be
denied that the suffrage should be so regulated that the vote of
every elector, as far as possible, shall have its due weight in the
choice of public servants. No citizen should feel that his vote
is useless, and every political community should feel the re-
straining influence of the minority party. But how is it in our
State? The twelve counties that compose the Western Reserve
send to the General Assembly seven Senators and seventeen
Representatives, — nearly one fifth of the whole body. These
officers are elected by the votes of fifty thousand Republicans.
The twenty thousand Democratic voters on the Reserve have
not one man of their choice in either branch of the legislature.
In such elections they are virtually disfranchised. On the other
hand, there is a belt of thirteen counties, commencing with
Wayne County, on the southern line of the Reserve, and extend-
ing to and including Adams County, on the Ohio River, which
send to the General Assembly six Senators and fifteen Repre-
sentatives. These are elected by forty thousand Democrats, and
the thirty thousand Republican voters in that belt of territory
have virtually no voice in the choice of their representatives,
and are utterly powerless at the polls. Both the Republicans of
this belt and the Democrats of the Reserve should be heard in
regard to the government of the townships, counties, and judi-
cial and representative districts where they live, and I have no
doubt both parties would be better if such were the case. The
inequality and injustice complained of can be, in a great meas-
ure, removed by adopting some plan for the representation of
minorities. The experiment has been tried successfully, and
would doubtless promote the public good in the election of rep-
resentatives, judges, county commissioners, township trustees,
school directors, and all officers who can be elected in groups.

I have suggested these classes of amendments only as exam-
ples of many that might be made. They are not partisan in

VOL. I. 47

73«

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1S7.

arties.

character, &nd arc addressed to thoughtful men of both partii
The average age of our American Slate constitutions at the
present time is less than seventeen years, and I hope that Ohio
will not wait till her constitution is forty years old before she
attempts to make it more fully in harmony with the spirit and
wants of Our lime. The work of the convention need not be
complicated with the passions and antagonisms of the Presi-
dential election, for the new constitution could hardly be ready
for the judgment of the people before the spring of 1 873.

And now, fellow-citizens, I am compelled to follow the fashion
of the time, and consider the relations of the two great political
parties to national affairs.

It is comforting to find that even on one topic of national
policy the two parties agree. I know that the hterature of
party platforms frequently illustrates Talleyrand's definition
of language, — "an instrument skilfully contrived to conceal
thought"; but something is gained when the two parties put
themselves on record as approving a reform in the civil service
of the government. After not a little study of the subject. I
say, without hesitation, that it would be difficult for any man to
exaggerate the evils which now afflict that branch of the public
service. The situation is all the more dangerous from the fact
that the evil is old, and that no one political party or adminis-
tration is wholly responsible for it. It is the result of an apos-
tasy from the theory and practice of the fathers, which began
with Jackson and has grown with steady and fearful rapidity
until the present time. It began by ignoring the fact that
offices were created and should be maintained solely for the
service of the government, and by regarding them as the legiti-
mate spoils of party triumph. We read with amazement the
story of Pontchartrain, Finance Minister of Louis XIV., who
created multitudes of useless offices and sold them to the high-
est bidder, as a measure of revenue. There was grim humor
in his remark to the king, " As often as your Majesty has created
an office, so often has God made a fool to buy it." But that
was nearly two centuries ago, and he made no pretence to de-
fending his policy, except that it put money in the royal
treasury. Unconsciously, and by stow degrees, the people of
the United States have allowed a policy to harden into custom,
which is nearly if not quite as bad. It has come to be regarded
as a proper thing to treat the seventy thousand government

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. 739

offices, great and small, as stock in trade to be used by the
leaders of central and local politics to insure success at elec-
tions, and to reward active party workers. Offices are not actu-
ally sold in the market for money, but they are distributed for
what is frequently less valuable, viz. political service.

In the army and navy service is honorable, because it rests
chiefly upon merit and the continued ability and faithfulness of
the officer. Not so in the lower walks of the civil service.
Merit is not the surest road to appointment or preferment; and
the most devoted and intelligent faithfulness is no security
against abrupt dismissal. It follows that the government is
poorly and irregularly served, and the great body of people
who serve it, especially in the more subordinate capacities, hold
their positions by a tenure most uncertain and under circum-
stances most unfavorable to their manliness and independence.
The system is as debasing to them as it is costly and inefficient
to the government. When Andrew Johnson deserted the Re-
publican party, all the thoroughfares of travel were thronged
with political pilgrims on their way to Washington, eager to
devour the smallest crumb of patronage, and demanding a
general dismissal of officials, even down to the humblest door-
keeper and messenger. Many of the numerous changes made
by him were forced upon him by the pressure of importunate
office-seekers, whom he could not resist. Some of the cabi-
net officers remonstrated, declaring that the merciless work of
decapitation was sweeping away their most trusted and efficient
subordinates, and crippling the work of their -departments; but
the cry for spoils, demanded in the name of party, drowned all
other voices, and private injury and the public service were
alike forgotten. In his distress at the spectacle witnessed in
his own department. Secretary McCulloch once said, " If you
give me one half what it costs to run the Treasury Department
of the United States, I will do all the work better than it is now
done, and make a great fortune out of what I can save."

It is said that some evils are so deeply seated that they must
get worse before they can get better. Judged by this rule, the
symptoms are favorable ; for the evils of our civil service have
long been, not merely ripe, but rotten. Last year, Thomas
Hughes, an honored and influential member of the British Par-
liament, and the intimate personal and political friend of the
present ministry, declared in a public address before a New

1

740 THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871,

York audience that he had no power to secure the appointment
of even the humblest clerk in the civi! service of Great Britain.
It will be a proud day for our country when leading members
of Congress can say the same thing for themselves in regard to
our civil servkn.

I count it among the diief ^liea of the Republicaaiparty
that they have begua the work of lefons. A ooUe«ffoit liM
recently made in tiiis directioii by a dutingaislwd citiien of
your own city,' and its beneficial results will not be forgotten
dther in the Department of the Interior or by ^ peof^
More recently atiU, Congress baa laid thcfettodation of s ge«-
eral reform, and the Fresideat has app<Mnted « commktiee of
earnest and able men to devi&e some plan for restoring the sm^
vice to honor vaA to duly. This ia » good begJnauig;' bitt I
warn the people that tha« can be no wor&y success wi^iotit
the determined and active support of public opinion. No nn-
gle department, not even Congress and tbe admudstrtdKm cooi-
bined, can successfully reust the force <^ depraved custom until
public opinion shall make a demwid so imperative Aateven tite
selfish interests of politicians are enlisted on the right side. It
is easy for the Democratic party to favor reform when it costs
them no sacrifice ; let us hope they will remember their late
declaration should they again get into power.

Besides the civil service there appears to be nothing on which
the two parties agree, not even the recent treaty with Great Brit-
ain, the making of which has honored human nature, and has
placed two great and kindred nations in the front rank of civil-
ized diplomacy. Our last war with England, and the negotia-
tions which, after many years, resulted from it, added as a new
chapter to international law the American protest against the
right of search. But now, the settlement without war of diffi-
culties far graver than those which led to the war of 1812, and
the recognition of the American doctrines of the rights and
duties of neutral nations in time of war, have added a far more
important chapter to the laws of nations. But though this great
treaty was hailed with rejoicings by the good people of both
nations, we are told that the votes of the Democratic Senators
were almost unanimously against it. It is difficult to imagine
any other reason for this vote than the fact that the treaty was
the work of a Republican administration.

> Hod. J. D. Cox, Secreury of ihe Intedor, 1S69-70.

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. 741

While the treaty of Washington has settled the most serious
of our foreign troubles growing out of the late war, there unfor-
tunately remain at home results of the conflict even more diffi-
cult to adjust. It has been the constant aim of the Republican
party to heal the wounds of the war, and bury In the oblivion
of generous amnesty the passions it engendered. It has de-
manded, as the condition of restoration, equal justice to all, and
the security of the future to liberty by irreversible guaranties
placed in the national Constitution, above the reach of party
fickleness and sectional hate. But the rage of defeated Rebels,
aided by the sympathy of the Democracy, has brought on a
condition of affairs in the South in which life and property are
endangered. It will hardly be denied that a formidable attempt
has been made to prevent the enforcement of the recent amend-
ments to the Constitution, and to deprive a large class of our
citizens of the equal protection of the laws. I shall leave to
others who have recently investigated the subject the fuller dis-
cussion of the character and object of these outrages. I will
only say ccfncerning the recent act of Congress known as the
Ku-Klux Law, that, though a severe and stringent measure, and
drawn up close to the line which separates the national from
the State jurisdiction, yet it has for its sole object the enforce-
ment of the new amendments, and the guaranty to all citizens
of the just and equal protection of the laws. Neither the pro-
visions of that act as it finally passed, nor the constitutional
amendments which it enforces, were designed to take away
from the States their rights of local government, or to disturb
the admirable balance of our dual system of national and local
governments. The penalties of the act are levelled against those
who wilfully attempt to deprive citizens of the rights and privi-
leges guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

In entering upon the discussion of our financial situation, I
ask the attention of the audience to a few general reflections.

There is no surer test of the character and spirit of a govern-
ment than its management of fiscal affairs. All kinds of public
mismanagement and rascality are sure to appear, sooner or later,
in the form of drafts on the treasury, increasing debts, or in-
creasing taxes. Bankruptcy was the last stage of the disease
which killed the old French monarchy. The reckless wars
waged with neighboring nations, the profligacy of the king and
his court, the extravagance and prodigality that everywhere per-

I vac

^42 THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OP 1871.

vaded the government, assumed at last the form of deficits that
could not be concealed, of debts that could not be paid, and of
taxes that could not be endured. Just on the eve of the great
revolution of 17S9, Nccker abandoned the treasury in despair,
assuring the king that the accumulated expenses were an abyss
whose depths could no longer be sounded. " In that abyss,"
says the historian Martin. " the monarchy was finally engulfed."
The French Kmpire which has just fallen in ruins affords a
still stronger illustration of this truth. The man who stole
France in 1852 appeared for many years to have sanctified his
theft by the success and brilliancy of his reign, and the world
was beginning to admit his claims to the title of Second Augus-
tus, who found I'aris brick and would leave it marble. But the
prestige of the name he bore, the brilliancy of his reign, the
devotion of bis army, the support of a subsidized nobility and
subservient legislature, were all powerless against the startling
significance of a few columns of figures, prepared by a tlioughl-
ful student of finance, and published three years ago in a mod-
est pamphlet entitled " The Balance Sheet of tht Empire."
This pamphlet might be called the Empire's death-warrant
It exposed the jugglery by which enormous deficits had been
kept out of sight. It disclosed a public debt, increasing in a
ratio whose inevitable last term must be bankruptcy and ruin at
no distant day. It showed the fact that during the fifteen years
of the Empire its army and navy had swallowed more than
10,000,000,000 francs of the public money. It exhibited the
immense sums expended in endowments, enrolments, and gifts
to officials, and to powerful politicians, as a means of converting
them to Napoleonism. It stated the cost of extravagant public
works undertaken for the sake of increasing artificially the
wages of workmen, and making them look upon the Emperor
as their special Providence. It named the sums annually ex-
pended on public galleries and theatres to amuse the people and
make them forget their lost liberties. It pointed to the fact that
but 23,000,000 francs a year — less than twelve cents a head —
had been expended in educating the children of France, and
that in her cities hardly half the population could write their
names. And finally, in a masterly analysis of the imperial sys-
tem of taxation, it showed that twenty-five per cent of the an-
nual net earnings of the French people were taken from them
as taxes. All this time, while life in France appeared a con-

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. 743

tinued and glorious holiday, the foundations of the national
strength were being honeycombed through and through by the
fatal mismanagement of the finances. The explosive material
was all in place, and the train laid, long before the Germans
crossed the Rhine. France was defeated before the first gun
was fired. Gravelotte and Sedan were but the noise and smoke
of an explosion which eighteen years of financial mismanage-
ment had prepared.

The principle I have stated is strikingly illustrated by the
present municipal government of New York City. For many
years it had been believed that the city was in the grasp of po-
litical robbers, though proofs were not so easily found. But it
needed only the exhibition of a single financial fact to put the
Tammany triumvirate in the pillory of public judgment, where
they are now being pelted with showers of figures, against which
they seem to have no defence. The fact to which I refer is, that
within the last eight months the debt of the city has increased
more than $50,000,000, while the necessary expenses have not
been very extraordinary. By what other process could political
villany be so thoroughly unveiled as by the publication of the
enormous expenses now being exhibited in the daily journals of
New York? These Democratic rulers of that city are powerless
before the published evidences that they have paid $7,000,000
for a court-house worth only $2,000,000; that they have paid
two millions of the seven for repairs, though the building was
new less than four years ago ; that they have paid for one hun-
dred and two acres of plastering for its walls ; that they have
bought for its floors twenty-five square acres of carpets, at five
dollars a yard, and for three public buildings seventeen miles
of chairs, at five dollars a piece. The voice of the press and
the people is thundering in their ears the demand for the
accounts, the exhibits, — the bills. But the Sachems do not
answer. Meanwhile the city is disgraced abroad, and its stocks
are stricken from the list of public securities bought and sold
in one of the leading markets of Europe. What else but the
terrible arithmetic of finance could have so shaken the throne
whereon Tammany sits, gorged with public plunder? After
the recent exposure, who can doubt that all this robbery is the
vital part of that well-disciplined organization which has so long
ruled and debased our great metropolis, and has at last seized
and debauched the political power of our greatest State? In

744 THE OHIO CAMPAIGX OF 1S71.

a letter which I received a few days since from a promiaent a
worthy citizen of New York, occurs this passage: "From 1
own knowledge of the crimes of the Tammany Ring, and frotal
what I know on unimpeachable authority, I estimate the :
they have stolen from thiscity at not less than $ioo,ooo.ooo.'*j
I rejoice that tJie Democracy of Ohio have not gone dow
into the depths where their New York brethren are wallowing J<
but they ought to be reminded every day in the year that the!
Tammany league is their political master, and under its leader-
ship alone is the election of a Democratic I'resident possible.
Let it not be forgotten that the day which witnesses the triumph
of the Democracy in this nation will witness also the legions of ■
Tammany entering the national capital to re-enact there the \
scenes that have made New York our political Sodom,

From this horrible picture of Democratic misrule. I turn with
pride and satisfaction to consider tlie administration of our
national finances. The Republican party comes forward with
its exhibits and vouchers in full detail. It offers the national
balance sheet for inspection and scrutiny. It challenges the
most rigid application of this most searching test. And, first,
let us apply the most palpable of all tests, — the expenditures
of the government. Have they been wisely incurred? Are
they honestly paid? And, above all, are they increasing or
diminishing?

Since the heaviest of the war bills were paid, a constant and
heavy reduction of expenditures has been taking place. The
total amount of this reduction is more than $85,000,000 since
June 30, 1868. That is, we now annually expend $85,000,000
less than we did three years ago. An analysis of our present
expenditures will show which are the heavy items, and will ex-
hibit the limits beyond which the work of reduction cannot go at
present. The total amount of expenditure is now $292,000,000,
Much the larger part of this sum is paid for obligations cre-
ated by the war. These extraordinary items for the fiscal year
just closed, stated in round numbers, stand thus : —

Interest on the public debt f 135,500,000

Expenses of national loan 9,000,000

Pensions 34,000,000

Balance of expenses of late war 10,500,000

Expenses of internal revenue department . , 7,000,000

Total ti 86,000,000

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 187 1. 745

No part of these expenses can be avoided without dishonor
or wanton neglect. This amount, taken from the total expen-
diture, leaves for the ordinary expenses of the year about
$106,000,000. It must be remembered that this sum includes
the total expenses of our present army and navy, which, though
reduced to the smallest force consistent with the necessities of
the country, are nevertheless larger in consequence of the dis-
turbances resulting from the war. When we remember that our
expenses are now reckoned in a depreciated currency, not in
gold and silver, and that they are made for thirty-one millions
of people, it will be seen that the government expenditure has
been restored to a peace basis, and that it is much more eco-
nomical than at any previous period since the war. This exhibit
is a conclusive and unanswerable proof that a spirit wholly
unlike that of Tammany Hall pervades the administration of
national affairs.

The revenue collected under our tax laws affords another
gratifying evidence of the thorough and honest enforcement of
the laws. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1866, our total
revenues, exclusive of loans, exceeded $558,000,000. Since
that time taxes have been abolished which, at the time of their
repeal, were producing an aggregate of $251,000,000. Yet,
because of the growth of our wealth, and of the faithful collec-
tion of our taxes, the total receipts of the year ending June 30,
1 87 1, were $383,000,000, leaving a surplus of receipts over ex-
penditures of $91,000,000. While I do not applaud the policy
which has preferred a great reduction of the debt rather than a
greater reduction of taxation, yet it is a just ground of pride
that the burden has been so greatly lessened. From the ist of
March, 1869, (three days before the inauguration of President
Grant,) to the first day of the present month, there has been
paid of the principal of the public debt, $242,134,402.03. This
payment and the operations of refunding have reduced the
annual charge of interest by the amount of $14,750,000.

The result of our financial administration has been a steady
improvement of our credit at home and abroad. With the ex-
ception of the legal-tender notes, which are still dishonored by
nonpayment, there is scarcely a pecuniary obligation of the
government which is not worth in gold the full amount prom-
ised on its face. This state of credit has made it possible to
refund a considerable part of our maturing six per cent debt

746 THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OP^^'

into new bonds at five per cent Over $60,000,000 has thus
been converted within a few months, and the Secretary of the
Treasury has just completed negotiations for the remainder of
the $200,000,000 offered. In this way the preservation of good
fiuth comes back to the government id the form of money
saved, tA expenses reduced, and affords another proof that hon-
eaQf is more profitable than any form of open or covert ras-
cal!^.

For the same reasons, also, it has been possible greatly to
reduce the burdens of taxation. Since July, i865, seven difTer-
eot acts have been passed, by which taxes were abolished that
produced at the time of their repeal a total of $25 1 ,000,000 per
annum. This reduction has been vitally important to the busi-
ness of tile country. For the last two years, and especially
during the last six months, there has been a constant tendency
to lower prices. We are slowly descending to the level of
nonnd prices, to the smaller though sure gains of regular in-
dustry. The consequent shrinkage of values bears hard upon
all enterprises, and especially upon debtors, and makes the bur-
den of taxes felt more heavily now than when the rate was
higher. For this reason, the demand that taxation be reduced
to the lowest amount consistent with the national faith is still
imperative. Some reduction of the public debt should be made
every year; but $100,000,000 a year is much too large a sum
to raise for that purpose in the present condition of the country.
As rapidly as possible we should muster out our remaining war
taxes, and place our revenue system on a peace basis. It is
clearly possible to reduce the burdens of taxation during the
coming winter by at least $60,000,000, and still have a sur-
plus of $40,000,000 to apply to paying the principal of the
public debt. Nor have I a doubt that the Republicans in
Congress will make that amount of reduction. How and on
what?

First, the internal taxes can be further reduced. That branch
of our revenue system produced $309,000,000 in 1866, and was,
without doubt, the heaviest and most oppressive internal tax
known in modern times. The last reduction, made by the act
of July, 1870, has left an internal tax on only six classes of
things from which revenue was produced during the year ending
June 30, 1871.

The revenue produced is as follows: —

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. 747

1. Spirits and fermented liquors l53»S00|0oo

2. Tobacco 33,500,000

3. Banks and bankers 3,750,000

4. Illuminating gas 2,500,000

5. Stamps 15,500,000

6. Incomes 19,250,000

Add taxes received during the year from old

rates, now repealed 15,500,000

Total 1143,500,000

Some attempt is being made to sweep away what remains
of our internal revenue system ; but I believe there is no tax
which the people more fully approve than that which levies
$87,cxx),ooo a year upon the consumers of liquors and tobacco.
It is a voluntary tax, from which every citizen can escape by
abstinence. Its imposition does not seriously cripple any indus-
try, and it probably has less tendency than any other to increase
the cost of the necessaries of life.

The retention of the income tax at the late session, in its
present shape, was, in my judgment, a blunder. If any part of
it had been retained, it should have been the tax on incomes
arising from the investment of capital, where the owner does
not add to his capital his own labor. The tax in its present
shape is fatally crippled as a revenue measure, and should be
abolished. In many of the rural districts the receipts do not
pay the cost of collection, and the law still retains its obnoxious
features, compelling citizens to expose their business, and mak-
ing it possible for dishonest men to escape assessment. All
nations that have levied a tax on incomes have regarded it as a
powerful instrument, to be used only in great emergencies, — a
war measure, which, like a drafted army, should be mustered
out in time of peace. So annoying is an income tax regarded
in France, so irritating in its interference with the privacy of
business, that the venerable Thiers, chief Executive of France,
announced in the National Assembly a few days since that, de-
plorable as was the financial condition of his country, it was not
so desperate as to warrant the imposition of an income tax.

The small tax on illuminating gas can also be spared, and
the remaining taxes, those on liquors, tobacco, banks, and the
stamp tax, can be collected by a greatly reduced organization.
Thus modified, our internal revenue system will produce about

r 1

m 748 T/f£ OHIO CAMPAIGN OF i^ii. ■

■ %i20fiO0,0CQ a year, ami its retention will doubtless receive tlic '
cordial sanction of tiie people. Bnt after even lUt ledncfiat
and modification of tbe iatstnal revenue has bees tna^, tfaae
can stUl be a fiiither repeal of taxes to the amodBt ilf 6uitft-
five or forty milliooB of dollus. And this brii^ me to tlie
consideration of our revenuet from costxnns.

In &e first place, 'thb shoold be treated, not n S'tiieoretkd,
but as an intensely pnu^cal question. The dwoniMs of both
schools may be benefited by remembering Ae criticism oft
recent writer, who says that " the protectionist, in hb va& fbr
the prosperity of the prodocer, is ccHUtastly in dao^er of ft>r-
getting the intoQsts and rights of tiie consuma-; andtiiatthe
ftee-trader, in bis anxiety to Ughten tbe burdens of tlw cob*
sumer, is in equal danger of forgetting the interests of die pn-
ducer." I believe there lies between the two extreme poshxM
held by tiw daetriitmrts a line of poli<y safer for the Treasury,
and wiser for tiie country, than cither would marie out. Let as
begin ^th fiurts.

Hie govermnent most raise an annual gold revoute of about
$tso/xx),ooo for the interest of the public debt, fas tiw sinkn^
fiiiid, and for the consular and dipkunatic e^qteases. This is
Ae central &ct In all our tariff le^slati(Hi^ The farther fiKt;
that the government is receiving from customs duties a large
surplus above tliat sum, proves that a reduction of customs
taxation can be made with safety to the Treasury.

But there are special reasons why the tariff laws should be
revised. They were enacted during the war, under the pressure
of an unusual financial necessity, in a time of very high prices
and a heavy premium on gold. From March, 1861, to March,
1867, Congress passed no less than thirteen tariff acts, each
having special reference to the situation of affairs at the time.
Now we have passed from war to peace, and the conditions are
greatly changed. The other branch of our system of taxation
has been six times revised, and taxes reduced, since the war. In
the mean time, the tariff has been almost untouched, and is now
far less equitable in its provisions than it was five years ago.
Last year, for the first time since the war, a general revision
of the tariff was attempted; but the bill broke down under the
load of debate before half its pages had been considered. Near
the close of the session, however, a bill passed the House with-
out debate, under the previous question, which became a law,

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. 749

and which further reduced internal taxes by the amount of
$SS,0(X),000, and tariff taxes by the amount of $23,000,000.
This act brought great relief to the country, but was partial
and incomplete in its provisions. Only a small part of the tariff
laws were revised, and some of the reductions which were made
left their provisions more unequal than before. There is an-
other consideration outside the merits of the case, which no
political party can ignore. It is that public opinion demands a
revision. It will be made either by the friends or by the enemies
of the tariff system. Its friends should control the work.

This is not the occasion to discuss details, but some general
indications of the course that should be pursued can be given.
And I mention, first, that some promises made by Congress
during the war ought to be redeemed, or a good excuse should
be given for not redeeming them. For example, among the
enormous burdens imposed by the war was an internal tax of
six per cent on the value of all articles manufactured by our
people. In the year 1866, this tax alone, exclusive of the tax
on spirits and tobacco, produced $130,000,000. That vast sum
of money was paid into the treasury by our manufacturers out
of their net earnings. At the time this tax was imposed, the
manufacturers called the attention of Congress to the fact that it
unbalanced the adjustment of tariff rates, and neutralized, by its
whole amount, the protection they had before enjoyed. Accord-
ingly, an additional duty was imposed on imported articles which
competed with home manufactures; and Mr. Morrill, of Ver-
mont, and other leading members of Congress, declared at the
time that this additional duty was only temporary, and intended
solely as a compensation for the six per cent internal tax. Now
this internal tax has been wholly removed, but the compensating
tariff rates remain untouched, except in a few instances where
they were modified by the act of July, 1870.

Again, there are some rates so excessive, and in the changed
condition of affairs so indefensible, that their retention operates
to the prejudice of the whole system. Take salt as an example.
Before the war, it was almost dutyfree, the rate being a cent and
a half a bushel. During the war, to meet the necessities of the
government, and to aid the manufacturers of salt, the rate was
increased from time to time to eighteen and twenty-four cents
on a hundred pounds, where it now stands. In consequence
of the fall in prices, and the changed conditions of trade, that

750 THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871.

rate amounts to more than one hundred per cent In gold. Thftfl
three cities of St. Louis, Chicago, and Cincinnati bought and]
distributed more tlian 300,000,000 pounds of salt during the!
last year, equal to nearly half of the whole quantity importedcH
In this case it cannot be denied that the duty has largely in'nl
creased the price of the salt consumed by our people. Thia'#
increase ought to be borne with patience if the good people ofT
the country and tlie wants of the Treasury required it. Hut so.^
far were the salt manufacturers from needing this high rate a
protection, that, as long ago as December, 1869. the Onondaga^
Company, of New York, were offering their salt in Toronto fori
$1.35 per barrel, while at the same time not a barrel could bel
bought anywhere south of the Lakes for less than $2.45 in cur- f
rency, or $1.94 in gold. The special champions of this interest I
succeeded in preventing any reduction of the rate in the act of J
July, 1870. They ought to have foreseen the reaction which f
followed. When, on the 18th of March last, the question came^l
to a direct vote, and the only choice lay between leaving the I
duty as it was and repealing it altogether, the House of Repre- I
sentativcs voted for the repeal by 147 yeas to 47 nays. But I
the Senate did not act, and the high rate continues. Neither
the principles of protection nor of common justice will tolerate
a rate of duty which, after the cost of transportation has been
paid, puts American salt into the free-trade markets of Canada
at a lower price than our people can buy it.

The recent history of the duty on coal affords another equally
forcible illustration of the folly of retaining the tax on an article
when it confers so small a benefit and offends so large a num-
ber of people.

Again, there are duties which are positively injurious to home
industry. Take the hat manufacture, for example. Nearly all
the material of which hats are made must be obtained from
abroad, but they bear a much higher rate of duty than is levied
on the imported hat itself. This of course injures the manu-
facturer and increases the cost of the consumer, and puts but
little money into the Treasury.

If I were seeking to destroy the whole system of protection,
I could devise no means more certain to accomplish my pur-
pose than to retain unchanged such taxes as these. I ear-
nestly warn you, fellow-citizens, that we are in imminent danger
of repeating again the old folly of dividing our people into

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. 75 1

two hostile camps ; — one determined to resist any revision
of the tariff, whether for the sake of reducing the amount of
taxation, for the more equitable distribution of burdens, or for
the removal of unjust and anomalous provisions ; and the other,
striking indiscriminately at the whole tariff system, without re-
gard to the great industries which have been built up under its
influence. Within the last half-century the industry and busi-
ness of this country have again and again been tossed back and
forth between these opposing factions, and each in turn has
brought on a reaction. In the light of our past history it will
be a crime if we now repeat the folly. Business needs stability,
and extremes are always unstable.

The partial revision of 1 870, which took effect on the ist of
January last, has borne good fruits. One hundred and fifty
articles were placed on the free list, and the rates of some
others were reduced. Yet the Treasury received from the tariff
$11,000,000 more during the fiscal year ending June 30, 187 1,
then in the previous year. The reasons which justified that act
require still more strongly the continuance of the work. I be-
lieve this revision can be made, and should be made, not only
without injury to American industry, but to its benefit. I use
the word industry in its broad and proper meaning. It is labor
in any form that gives value to the elements of nature, either by
extracting them from the earth, the air, or the sea, or by modi-
fying their forms, transporting them to market, or in any way
making them better fitted for the use of man.

In the work of tariff revision it is eminently safe to trust the
Republican party, and eminently dangerous to trust their oppo-
nents. The Democracy seem to hate the present tariff system,
because Republicans made it. They denounce it as robbery,
and yet their representatives voted almost unanimously against
the act which reduced the customs tax $23,000,000. In the
hands of its friends, the system will not be destroyed, but will
be amended, and made to conform to the wants of the time
and to the most enlightened financial policy. It is true, there
are wide differences among Republicans themselves on the
theoretical and practical aspects of this subject; but I cannot
doubt that, with wise forbearance toward each other, and an
earnest regard for the public good, the study of this subject
will lead to an adjustment, not violent and revolutionary, but
just and conservative, in the better meaning of that word.

752 THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1S71. I

Though I had read tlie currency and debt resolutions of the
late Domocratic Convention, I looked upon them as a sort of
post morietH eulogy of an exploded doctrine, and designed
merely as a compliment to Mr. Pendleton, the distinguished
chairman of the Convention. I was therefore surprised to find
that General Ewing, in his recent speech at Columbus, has
treated the resolutions seriously, as living articles of Demo-
cratic faith. General Ewing, for himself and his party in Ohio,
still insists on paying the five-twenty bond.s in greenbacks.
Body-snatching was never regarded as a specially cheerful
business, and to exhume and reclothe the dead body of this
rascality requires cxhaustless resources of cheerfulness, ner\-e, ,
and stomach. While 1 admire the courage and ability of the ]
General, I cuinot allow some of bis atatemeatt to go ancoB-
tradicted.

He says that tlie Republicans generally fovored the pqnnent
of these bonds in greenbacks until Gennal Grant was, iou^pt-
rated President, and then turned round and insisted diat diqr
should be paid in gold. It is true that, iriien this question was
first raised, there 'was some difference of opinion among the
Republicans in regard to the letter of the law, and some were
disposed to take advantage of a possible interpretation that
would make the outstanding greenbacks receivable for bonds,
dollar for dollar; but the National Republican Convention of
1868 brushed aside all subtile casuistry, and resolved to pre-
serve inviolate the public faith by keeping both the letter and
the spirit of the law. I will not restate the argument, but I will
call the attention of our Democratic friends to a single fact.

In the House of Representatives, July 23, 1868, in reply to
the late Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, I reviewed at length the
proceedings of Congress in regard to the passage of the act
of February 25, 1865, which authorized the five-twenty loan,
quoting the remarks made by different members of Congress
at the time of its passage in regard to the mode of payment of
the loan. After giving date and page for all the citations, I
summed up the result as follows ; " I have carefully gone over
all the proceedings, as recorded in the Globe and in the Jour-
nal of the House, and I have not found an intimation made,
directly or indirectly, by any member, that it was ever dreamed
the principal of these bonds could be paid in anything but
gold. On the contrary, all who did refer to the subject spoke

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF iSji. 7 $3

in the most positive terms, that, as a matter of course, they
were payable in gold."^ All parties were challenged to deny
or disprove the correctness of these citations, which were pub-
lished broadcast as a campaign document pending the Presi-
dential election. Up to this time no attempt has been made,
either to deny the correctness of the statement I have just
quoted, or to dispute the further facts that the executive offi-
cers of the government at the time the bonds were negotiated
took the same view as that taken by Congress, and that both
parties to the contract understood its terms to stipulate pay-
ment in coin. The national conscience approved the position
of the Republican party in 1868, and the subsequent enhance-
ment of the public credit proved again the old truth, that, in
the long run, honesty is cheaper than the most skilfully dis-
guised rascality.

But the most remarkable feature of Democratic finance is that
clause of the platform which General Ewing calls the " finan-
cial new departure," and which he seems to regard as a dis-
covery of great value. Justice to its author should have led the
Convention to inform their followers that this plan is borrowed
(though bungled in the borrowing) from that ingenious financier,
Mr. B. F. Butler, who proclaimed it in a speech in Congress,
several months ago, as a device to save the nation from what
he called " the barbarism of gold and silver " as a circulating
medium. The new plan proposes, first, to issue greenbacks and
cancel five-twenty bonds, and then to' issue a three per cent
bond, which people may take in exchange for their greenbacks.
These two classes of paper are to be geared together by a kind
of double back-action arrangement, which will allow a man to
change his investment from one to the other at his pleasure.
The plan has been strongly approved by the brokers of New
York City, who will be glad to have the government pay inter-
est on their capital when they cannot themselves employ it in
speculation. This new financial device has two important as-
pects: first, its relation to the public debt and the Treasury;
and, second, to the currency and the industry and commercial
interests of the people. .

So far as it relates to the government and its creditors, it is a
simple proposition to repudiate half the interest of the public
debt altogether, and to pay the other half in currency greatly

1 See Speech on " Mr. Stevens and the Five-Twenty Bonds," ant^t p. 356.
VOL. I. 43

^.m^Aimmim^a^

1

7S4 THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF iSji.

more depreciated than any we now have. I venture to suggest
to these gentlemen that the cost of printing and engraving the
new bonds, and the expense and trouble of exchanging them
for the old, can be avoided by the passage of a simple act to
the -following effect: "Be it ettacted. etc.. That the Treasurer
of the United States shall hereafter pay but three per cent per
annum in currency, as interest on the outstanding obligations of
the United States, known as five-twenty-bonds, in iieu of the
six per cent in gold now required by law; said bonds to be
exchanged at par for greenbacks. This act shall take effect
from and after its passage, every law, obligation, or contract of
the United States to the contrary notwithstanding," This would
certainly accomplish the object proposed, and it is as easily
understood as any other form of robbery.

The effect of this scheme on the currency would be as disas-
trous to the business of the country as its dishonesty would be
to the honor and credit of the nation. General Ewing thinks
that, to effect the conversion of the bonds and to meet the wants
of trade, a thousand millions of greenbacks will be sufficient at
first ; but his generous and philanthropic nature is not to be lim-
ited by that small measure of blessing, and so, to meet the rem-
nant of interest not exploited away by the billion issue, he will
emit an additional twenty-five millions each year, and thus make
the printing-press pay our interest This plan calls to mind
the mad days of Continental money, when a member of the old
Continental Congress exclaimed, " Do you think, gentlemen,
that I will consent to load my constituents with taxes, when we
can send to our printer and get a wagon-load of money, one
quire of which will pay for the whole? " General Ewing has
quite eclipsed the wisdom of that member of an early New
England legislature, who proposed to abolish all taxes and pay
the expenses of the State out of the treasury!

But the General's philanthropy does not stop with printing
the interest of the debt out of existence. He says: " But we
are told the legal tenders will be a debt outstanding when all
the bonds are paid. They will be no debt in any proper sense of
the word ; " for, he continues, " the government will keep them
in circulation with an annual increase sufficient to furnish the
people with money and keep down interest, and thus the curse
of the debt will turn to a blessing." It requires more than
ordinary courage to run such a tilt, not only against all the set-

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. 755

tied maxims of political economy, but also against the multipli-
cation table itself.

The General assumes that to increase the volume of currency
will reduce the rate of interest. Both history and economical
science are against him. In every country which is cursed with
depreciated paper money, the rate of interest is higher than in
specie-paying countries. The rate does not rise as the imme-
diate consequence of an increased volume of currency, but
because of the greater risk to which the lender is exposed on
account of the disturbance and uncertainty of value caused by
the increase. Almost in the exact ratio of our return towards
specie values, we have seen the rate of interest coming down,
and we now see the government refunding its debt at five per
cent. Because confidence is returning to business, prices are
coming down toward their old level. General Ewing wholly
ignores the distinction between capital and money. He seems
to think that, should the Treasury print a ton of greenbacks, the
people will have that much additional capital to lend. But the
people can only get this ton of paper by buying it and paying
for it, and the purchase will neither increase their capital nor
their power to lend. No principle is better settled than this,
that the rate of interest depends, not upon the amount of cur-
rency in circulation, but upon the security or insecurity of
investments, the demand for loans, and the supply of surplus
capital which the owners are willing to lend.

General Ewing also complains that the country has not cur-
rency enough for its business. I answer him by the fact, that
of the $54,000,000 of national bank currency offered to the peo-
ple by the act of July, 1870, less than $20,000,000 has been
called for. That fact has staggered and silenced all the infla-
tionists except General Ewing ; and I do not know of one peti-
tion being sent to Congress for an increase of the currency
during the last session.*

It is a delusion and a snare to suppose that inflation will ben-
efit the business of the country. Since the inauguration of
General Grant the purchasing power of the currency has in-
creased twenty-one per cent, in consequence of its enhanced
value. The $700,000,000 of outstanding currency held by the
people is now worth $100,000,000 more in gold than it was in
March, 1869. We have been slowly making our way back to

^ See introductory note to " Currency and the Banks," June 7, 1870, anUy p. 543.

756 THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871

solid values and to the steady industries of peace. The Democ-
racy of Ohio propose to push us out again upon the sea of paper
money, on whose wave's we must toss more wildly than ever.
Our money is no longer to be the money of the world. Though
our trade of a billion a year with foreign nations must be in gold
and silver, yet among ourselves we are to have a debased and
irredeemable paper currency, whose volume and value are to
depend upon the folly and caprices of political parties, and upon
the accident of a vote in Congress. Wc are invited to re-enact
the folly of assignats and Continental money. And this is the
policy of a party that preaches loudly against the dangers of
centralization ! When the government turns banker, and when
the value of every product is made to depend upon a few men
at Washington, we shall indeed have a most dangerous centrali-
zation of power. This is the policy of the party that still boasts
of Jefferson as their father. — Jefferson, who said, in the ripeness
of his wisdom, " That paper money has some advantages is ad-
mitted; but that its abuses are inevitable, and, by breaking up
the measure of value, make a lottery of all private property, can-
not be denied."

Lord Karnes tells us there is a sixth sense in man, which be
proposed to call the sense of completeness. It must have been
the exercise of this sixth sense that led the Democratic Con-
vention to conclude the financial new departure resolution with
a declaration that the true way to resume specie payments is to
make customs duties payable in currency. And this after they
had in the previous paragraph resolved in favor of a currency
which is never to be redeemed ! It has never been my fortune
to see another twenty lines of printed paper which contained so
great an amount of stupid absurdity, combined with so much
shameless and infamous rascality, as is found in the twelfUi res-
olution of the Democratic pFatform,

Concerning the internal troubles of the Ohio Democracy
growing out of the count of their tellers at the late Convention,
I have nothing to say. That affair is of the nature of a family
secret, which Colonel Connell and other Democratic leaders
have a better right to discuss than I have. The Republican
party cheerfully accept Colonel George W. McCook as a Dem-
ocratic nominee, and cordially welcome him to the field of
debate. There is, however, another branch of their family
troubles which is of sufficient public interest to be made a topic

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871. 757

of debate in this campaign. I allude, of course, to the new de-
parture on the subject of the late constitutional amendments.
General Ewing thinks the Republicans are alarmed at this ** new
departure." I assure him he is quite mistaken. On the con-
trary, they heartily rejoice to know that at last a part of the
Democracy renounce their false but oft-repeated assertion, that
these " constitutional amendments are fraudulent, revolutionary,
and void." If the confession is sincere, so much the better, for
it helps to secure the fruits of the war and make permanent the
policy for which Republicans have so long labored. I wish the
confession had been more general and more sincere. I cannot
forget that one hundred and twenty-nine members of the Con-
vention not only refused to confess, but vehemently denounced
the confession as false to the party and false to history.
Though the Democracy of several Northern States have taken
the new departure, yet Kentucky repudiates it, and the Demo-
cratic leaders of the whole South scorn it. Jefferson Davis says
he has nothing to retract, nothing to admit, no terms to make,
and that the ideas of the Rebellion will yet triumph. He ex*
horts the South to hold on in their hate and rage until divisions
among Northern politicians make it possible for the lost cause
to triumph. Robert Toombs denounces this new departure in
his old style of fierceness, and says the South will be ready to
fight again sooner than the people imagine, and that he ex-
pects to live long enough to see them conquer their indepen-
dence. There is a kind of heroism in that devotion, even to
a bad cause, which leads men to stand by their own conduct,
and voluntarily perish with their associates in crime. It re-
minds us of those old Romans, who, having rebelled against
their country and failed in their rebellion, fell on their own
swords. But I quite agree with Colonel Connell, that self-
martyrdom in the hope of exciting popular sympathy is con-
temptible. We admire the spirit of the Roman Scaevola, who,
in contempt of the torture and death that threatened him, held
his own hand in the fire until it was burned off; but we despise
a political party that puts itself into purgatorial fires for the
sake of exciting pity for its suffering, and to secure the plasters
of office to heal its blisters. For the sake of the country and
the truth, I rejoice that so large a number of Democrats have
professed repentance on this subject. As a means of regain-
ing power, it has been done too grudgingly, and it has come

7S8 THE OHIO CAMPA/GiV OF 1871.

too late. Borrowing a phrase from the vigorous language
of Colonel Connell, it has put the party " on the cutty-stool,"
but will not place them in the chair of sUte. Macaulay says
of Charles II.; " He was crowned in his youth with the Co%-e-
nant in his hand; he died at last with the Host sticking in his
throat. His whole life had been a falsehood, and his death-
bed confession neither injured the Protestants nor helped the
Catholics, but was a scandal to religion." I will not say that
the Democracy is dying, but their confession was very sudden,
and it is manifest that the doctrine of the new departure " sticks
in their throats," Vallandigham was right when, in the last
political speech of his life, he told his party that in their recent
history they had repeated the story of the valley of dry bones.
Looking out over the whole party, recounting its failures and
defeats and dcadncss, he exclaimed. "Can these bones live?"
He expressed the hope that the new departure would reanimate
the dry bones and make them rise up again a mighty host; but
it has made only a ghostly rattling among the skeletons, —
merely this and nothing more.

And now, fellow-citizens, the two parties, with their records,
professions, and certificates of character, are before you. During
the last ten years the Democratic party has appeared in almost
every conceivable guise and disguise. In Ohio it has tried
every style of candidate, from Secessionist to soldier. As a
national party it has attempted to modify its doctrines to suit
customs and localities, and in attempting to make itself all
things to all men, it has justly lost the confidence of the people.
Each year their old doctrine of Secession and their anti-national
spirit have pervaded and vitiated their whole organization, as
bilgewater in the hold of a ship taints the cargo and infects
the crew. For them, as for the ship, the public safety demands
disinfectants and a long quarantine. Every year has witnessed
the utter explosion of some favorite dogma of that party. Read
over the dreary catalogue of their doctrines and declarations
for the last ten years, and you will find that at least three out of
every four are utterly dead. Recall a few out of the many ex-
amples that might be given. The States so sovereign that, even
should they make war on the Union, the nation has no right to
coerce them into obedience. Dead ! The war for the Union a
failure. Dead I The laws that called soldiers into the field un-
constitutional. Dead I Slavery a beneficent, divine institution,

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 187 1. 759

which the nation cannot touch in war, and ought not to abol-
ish by constitutional enactment. Dead ! The negro race shall
never wear the uniform of a soldier, enjoy the protection of the
laws, nor hold the ballot of a citizen. Dead everywhere, ex-
cept in the councils of the Ku-Klux ! The unconstitutionality
of the law that made greenbacks a legal tender, and the predic-
tion that they will soon be more worthless than the paper on
which they are printed. Dead ! The Fourteenth and Fif-
teenth Amendments fraudulent, revolutionary, and void. Dead !
the Ohio Democracy are this fall attending its funeral. These
and many more of their fundamental doctrines are as dead as
the constitution and laws of the late Confederate States. The
simple fact is, that no mere change of costume, attitude, pro-
fession, or leadership will remove the ingrained viciousness of
the Democratic organization. It has outlived its epoch and
its usefulness. As an iceberg holds fast, frozen in its heart, the
d/bris of the cliff from which it was broken off, so the Demo-
cratic party holds in its organization the broken remnants of
slavery and rebellion, and all the passions that they engendered.
Perhaps I may add that, as the iceberg, drifting away under
warmer skies, melts into mists and waves, dropping its unsightly
sediment into the depths of the sea, so only may the Demo-
cratic party, by dissolution, mingle its better elements with the
general mass of the people, and sink its evil out of sight.

To all these characteristics the Republican party presents
the most striking contrast. It differs from the Democratic
party in its origin, in the objects it pursues, in the spirit which
animates it, and even in the character of its faults. It originated
in those sentiments most honorable to human nature, — the love
of justice, and the conviction that the nation must cease to be
an oppressor or perish. It won its first victory in an appeal
to the conscience of the nation. It earned the gratitude of
mankind by saving the nation's life, by preserving and strength-
ening the bond of union, and by securing to all men equality
before the law. Its life has been so identified with the public
safety and the public faith, that its success at the polls has al-
ways been hailed, in war, as a victory over the enemy; in peace,
as a triumph for our credit abroad and our property at home.
Its past achievements need not be rehearsed. They have taken
their places securely and forever among the immortal glories
of the republic. Time will not dim, but rather brighten their
lustre. •

76o TBE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871.

Most of the doctrines of the Republican party have become
the fixed and irrevocable policy of the nation. Success has
added to its ranks some bad elements, — some men without
convictions, who always drift to tlic winning side, as loose
freight rolls with the lurch of the ship. Sometimes the party,
in its pride of strength, has been wrong-headed, and has made
mistakes. In some quarters corruption has crept into its ranks.
But ■for all its sins, the severest criticisms usually come from its
own members. The greatest peril that threatens it is the dan-
ger that it may be satisfied to rest upon its laurels, and forget
that the conditions of national life are forever changing, its
wants ever new, and that no party can live worthily which does
not continue to represent the noblest aspirations and the most
enlightened thoughts of its time. Let it not fall into the error
of relying for its success upon the greater sins and follies of
its antagonists. Let the time never come when the highest
eulogy that can be pronounced on the Republican party will be
that it is not so bad as the Democratic party.

Thus stand the two parties to-day. I see no sufficient reason
why the popular verdict should be reversed in regard to cither
of them. Eleven years ago the people pronounced the sen-
tence that expelled the Democracy from power ; ten times the
Democracy have been summoned to the public bar to show
cause why that sentence should be revoked; ten times they
have been heard by a patient and generous people, and ten
times they have been remanded again to exile, with an im-
pressive exhortation to repentance and good works. With
unhesitating confidence the Republican party calls again for
the verdict.

1

I

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND

REPRESENTATION.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

December 12, 187 1.

The bearing of the Fourteenth Amendment upon the apportionment
of Representatives in Congress was considered by Mr. Garfield in his
speech upon the Ninth Census, delivered December 16, 1869. The
Fifteenth Amendment, which was declared in a proclamation of the
Secretary of State, dated March 30, 1870, to have been duly ratified,
rendered inoperative the Fourteenth, in so far as that related to the
denial or abridgment of the right of suffrage on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude. Still that Amendment reached a
large number of cases that were not taken into the account when the
Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. In some remarks upon the Ap-
portionment Bill, made December 6, 187 1, Mr. Garfield declared that
this Amendment had radically changed the basis of representation. He
stated once more the classes who were denied the suffrage in the various
States, and said Congress would have to wait, before passing an appor-
tionment bill, until the Census Office could furnish all the statistics bear-
ing upon the subject. On the 1 2th of December he made the following
remarks in Committee of the Whole. It may be added, however, that
his representations were unheeded, and that the Fourteenth Amendment,
in so far as respects the right of representation, has not been carried out
in a single instance.

MR. CHAIRMAN, — The language of this Amendment
seems to me unfortunately chosen, and I do not believe
that those who put it into the Constitution saw, at the time, the
full scope and extent of its meaning. It was intended to de-
clare, simply, that in any State where suflTrage was denied or
abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude, representation should be diminished in the ratio that

762 THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

the number of male citizens, twenty-one years of age and up-
wards, to whom it was denied, bore to the total number of such
citizens in the State. And that was a wise and just proposition.
But I believe that when the article was pending in Congress,
some one suggested, in the spirit of a similar criticism made
by Madison in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that
the word " servitude " or "' slavery " ought not to be named in
the Constitution as existing, or as exercising any influence on the
suffrage ; and hence the negative form was adopted to avoid the
use of an unpleasant word- But in adopting the negative form,
with a view to the exclusion of only two classes, they did, as a
matter of fact, exclude many classes who were manifestly not in
the minds of the authors of the Amendment at the time. Thus
they made the back of the blade as sharp as the edge. The
whole case is a striking illustration of the danger of attempting
to reach an object indirectly, when there is a direct road which
leads to the same end.

But, Mr. Chairman, the Constitution is here, in the words that
have been quoted several times during this debate. Can we
obey its requirements? If so, how? Or shall we neglect them?
The gentleman from Pennsylvania ' says we may neglect it, be-
cause the Constitution does not execute itself, and Congress
made no law to provide for taking the statistics necessary for its
execution. I wish to call that gentleman's attention to a matter
of history, which, I think, will answer his argument.

The House of Representatives passed, at the beginning of the
last Congress, a very elaborate bill, in which the carrying out
of this specific clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was pro-
vided for, and the method prescribed by which the statistics
called for under the clause should be obtained. That bill passed
the House after eleven days' debate, but the Senate came to
the conclusion that the old law for taking the census, the law of
1850, was good enough, and the committee which had charge
of the subject reported, on the 7th of February, 1870, a bill as a
substitute for the House bill, in these words: "That the Secre-
tary of the Interior be directed so to change the schedules and
blanks to be used in enumerating the inhabitants of the United
States- in 1870, as to make the same conform to the Constitution
of the United States."

These words were proposed as a substitute for the House bill
' Mr. Mercur.

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. J63

of some thirty or forty pages. After a long debate it was de-
clared by Senators that this substitute was unnecessary; not
that, as my friend from Pennsylvania affirms, the Constitution
would not execute itself, but that it would be the duty of the
Secretary of the Interior to make his schedules conform to the
changes in the organic law without any new act of Congress.
This view was discussed, and I have before me the speech of
the Senator who had charge of the bill. That Senator expressed
the opinion that no legislation was necessary, and that the Sec-
retary of the Interior must consider the amendments to the
Constitution as a part of the law which should guide him in his
work. The Senate agreed to this view, and by an overwhelm-
ing vote laid both the bill of the House and the Senate substi-
tute on the table. That substitute, as I have already shown,
required the Secretary of the Interior to change the schedules
and rtiake them conform to the Constitution. We thus had
from the Senate a solemn declaration that in their judgment no
legislation was needed, and that the Secretary of the Interior
must give such instructions, and must make such changes in
the schedules, as the amendments to the Constitution required.

Mr. Willard. I desire to ask the gentleman from Ohio, who was act-
ing chairman of the Committee on the Census, if, in his judgment, the
present census, as it is now in the office of the Secretary of the Interior,
does not contain facts which will enable the House to make the appor-
tionment in obedience to the requirements of the Constitutional Amend-
ment ? Georgia, for instance, requires a tax to be paid by all persons
over twenty-two years of age. Now, the census will show how many
male persons over twenty-two years of age there are in Georgia. A fair
constniction will bring that case under the Amendment. Will not the
census show the fact? and may we not get at the basis of apportionment
there by deducting that number ?

I shall come to that in a moment, if my friend will allow me.
If gentlemen have been following my remarks, they will see that
the Secretary of the Interior, by this vote of the Senate, con-
sidered himself instructed as to his duties in the premises. Now,
what did the Secretary proceed to do? The gentleman from
Pennsylvania says that the law and schedules of 1850 were
his only law, and that he had no right to change them. I
call his attention to the fact that the Secretary of the Inte-
rior actually dropped out of the census of 1870 a whole sched-
ule which stands in the law of 1850, which, according to the

gentleman's view, was the only law that the Secretary had.
How could he drop one of the six schedules of the law un-
der which he was acting? I answer, for the manifest reason
that that schedule required him to lake a census of slaves, and
to collect special statistics in reference to slaves. But by the
Thirteenth Amendment slavery had been abolished, and he was
bound to Uke notice of the fact and govern himself accordingly.
He did ver>- properly drop that schedule. Now, if he took cog-
nizance of that fact, he was equally bound to take cognizance
of the further fact that the basis of representation had been
changed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and he was bound to
conform his schedule to this change. That he proceeded to do ;
and how? He knew that the House Committee on the Ninth
Census had examined this subject, and reported a method of
taking the census, so as to meet the demands of the Fourteenth
Amendment as far as practicable. In their report that com-
mittee say : —

" After much reflection, the committee could devise no belter way
than lo add to the family schedule a column for recording those who
are voters, and another wiili ihis heading, copied substantially from the
Amendment : ' Citizens of the United States, being twenty-one years of
age, whose right to vole is denied or abridged on other grounds than
rebellion or crime.' It may be objected that this will allow the citizen
to be a judge of the law as well as the feet, and that it will be difficult to
get true and accurate answers. We can only say this is the best method
that has been suggested." '

The Secretary of the Interior adopted these suggestions as
being, in his judgment, the best method that he could take to
carry out this clause of the Constitution. Those two columns,
as my friend from Pennsylvania has said, are numbered nine-
teen and twenty in the Population Schedule which was used by
the marshals throughout the country. The Secretary of the
Interior, therefore, considering himself instructed by the Con-
stitutional Amendment, took this method to get the required
proportion from which to find the representative population of
the United States. He has given us the result in the table now
before us. The Secretary says, officially, that the result is not
satisfactory nor trustworthy. I presume this is so, for the ma-
chinery of the old law was wholly inadequate to such work.
But, correct or incorrect, this table is the only result we have
1 Home of Representatives Report No. 3, Jaoiuiy 18, iS^ p. 53,

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. j6i

or can get. The original idea of the census was for the very
purpose of basing the representation of the country on its
results. The purpose, and the only purpose, for which a census
was authorized by the Constitution, was to apportion represent-
atives and direct taxes among the people.

Now we have the results as ascertained under the Constitu-
tion and laws, and, however imperfect they may be in the
judgment of any gentleman, they form our only basis of appor-
tionment. In my judgment, we are bound to do one of two
things: either to refuse to obey the Fourteenth Amendment
according to the results obtained, or take the results as they
come and make them the basis of apportioning representation.
Now, in a table which I have received from the Census Bureau,
the reductions have been made from the total populations of
each State, according to the proportion of their disfranchised
persons. This table gives the following information for each of
the States: Total population; Male citizens of the United
States, twenty-one years of age and upwards; Male citizens
twenty-one years of age and upwards whose right to vote is
abridged for other causes than rebellion or other crime ; Rep-
resentative population, etc. These are the totals under the
above heads, following the same order: 38,113,253; 8,314,805;
40,380; 37*928,329.

I do not see that we have any choice. This is an official
report, the report of the only tribunal that the Constitution
knows in connection with this subject. If that tribunal is
wrong, I will not say that we may not in any way revise it ; for
we could order the census of any State taken over again. But
if we apportion the representatives this winter, and obey the
Constitution, we cannot go outside this report upon any unoffi-
cial statistics that any individual may present, however correct
such statistics may be. It seems to me that we are bound to
take this report into account; and I hope this work will com-
pel future Congresses to provide some more efficient mode for
taking those statistics.

APPENDIX.

I.

LETTER TO MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS.

[The copy here followed is the originsil, found in the files of the War Department.]

Through the winter and spring of 1863, the Army of the Cumberland,
Major-General W. S. Rosecrans commanding, had its headquarters at Mur-
freesborough, Tennessee. The President and the war authorities early in
the spring became very anxious that the General should move against the
enemy. General Garfield, who was Rosecrans's Chief of Staff, added his
urgency to the urgency of the authorities at Washington. Rosecrans said
he was not ready, and insisted that a forward movement would be hazard-
ous. Finally, June 8, he sent a circular letter to the leading generals of
the army calling for their views. When the replies were in, General Gar-
field summarized them, and stated his own views in the following letter : —

Headquarters, Department of the Cumberland,
Murfreesborough, June 12, 1863.

General, — In your confidential letter of the 8th instant to the corps
and division commanders and generals of cavaby of this army, there
were substantially five questions propounded for their consideration
and answer, viz. : —

1. Has the enemy in our front been materially weakened by detach-
ments to Johnston or elsewhere ?

2. Can this army advance on him at this time with strong reasonable
chances of fighting a great and successful battle ?

3. Do you think an advance of our army at present likely to prevent
additional reinforcements being sent against General Grant by the enemy
in our front ?

4. Do you think an immediate advance of this army advisable ?

5. Do you think an ^ar/^ advance advisable ?

Many of the answers to these questions are not categorical, and can-
not be clearly set down either as affirmative or negative. Especially
in answer to the first question there is much indefiniteness, resulting

768 APPENDIX.

from the difTereDce of judgment as to how great a detachment could be

considered a " material reduction" of Bragg's strength. For example,
one officer thinks it has been reduced ten Uiousand, bul not " materially
weakened." Tlie answers to the second question arc modified in some
instances by the opinion that the Rebels will fall back behind the
Tetmessee River, and thus no battle can be fought, either successful or
unsuccessful. So far as these opinions can be stated in tabular form,
they will stand thus : —

y«. No,

Ansnera to first question 6 II

Answers to second question a it

Answers to third question 4 10

Answers to fourth question o 15

Answers to fifth question o 1

On the fifth question, three gave it as their opinion that this army
ought to advance as soon as VicksUurg falls, should that event happen.
The following is a summary of the reasons assigned why we should not
at this time advance upon the enemy : —

1. With Hooker's army defeated, and Grant's bending all its energies
in a yet undecided struggle, it is bad policy to risk our only reserve
array to the chances of a general engagement, A failure here would
have most disastrous effects on otir lines of communication, and on
politics in the loyal States.

3. We should be compelled to fight the enemy on his own ground,
or follow him in a fruitless stem chase ; or if we attempted to outflank
him or turn his position, we should expose our line of communication
and run the risk of being pushed back into a rough coimtry, well known
to the enemy and little known to ourselves.

3. In case the enemy should fall back without accepting battle, he
could make our advance very slow, and with a comparatively small force
posted in the gaps of the mountains could hold us back while he crossed
the Tennessee River, where he would be measurably secure and free to
send reinforcements to Johnston, His forces in East Tennessee could
seriously harass our left flank, and constantly disturb our communications.

4. The withdrawal of Butnside's Ninth Aimy Corps deprives us of
an important reserve and flank protection, thus increasing the difficulty
of an advance.

5. General Hurlburt has sent the most of his forces away to General
Grant, thus leaving West Tennessee imcovered, and laying our right Sank
and rear open to raids of the enemy.

The following incidental opinions are expressed ; —

I. One ofllicer thinks it probable that the enemy has been strength-
ened rather than weakened, and that he (the enemy) would hove a
reasonable prospect of victory in a general battle.

APPENDIX. 769

2. One officer believes the result of a general battle would be doubt-
ful, a victory barren, and a defeat most disastrous.

3. Three officers believe that an advance would bring on a general
engagement. Three others believe it would not.

4. Two officers express the opinion that the chances of success in a
general battle are nearly equal.

5. One officer expresses the belief that our army has reached its
maximum strength and efficiency, and that inactivity would seriously
impair its effectiveness.

6. Two officers say that an increase of our cavalry by about six
thousand men would materially change the aspect of our affairs and give
us a decided advantage.

In addition to the above summary, I have the honor to submit an
estimate of the strength of Bragg's army, gathered from all the data I
have been able to obtain, including the estimate of the General Com-
manding in his official report of the battle of Stone River, and facts
gathered from prisoners, deserters, scouts, and refugees, and from Rebel
newspapers. After the battle he (Bragg) consolidated many of his deci-
mated regiments and irregular organizations, and at the time of his
sending reinforcements to Johnston his army had reached its greatest
effective strength. It consisted of five divisions of infantry, composed of
ninety-four regiments and two independent battalions of sharp-shooters ;
say ninety-five regiments. By a law of the Confederate Congress, regi-
ments are consolidated when their effective strength falls below two hun-
dred and fifty men. Even the regiments formed by such consolidation
(which may reasonably be regarded as the fullest) must fall below five
hundred men. I am satisfied that four hundred is a large estimate of
the average strength.

The force would then be : —

Infantry, 95 regiments, 400 each 38,000

Cavalry, 35 regiments, say 500 each ....'.... 17,500

Artillery, 26 batteries, say 100 each 2,600

Total "58^0

This force has been reduced by detachments to Johnston. It is as
well known as we can ever expect to ascertain such facts, that three
brigades have gone from McCown's division, and two or three from
Breckinridge's, say two. It is clear that there are now but four infan-
try divisions in Bragg's army, the fourth being composed of firagments
of McCown*s and Breckinridge's divisions, and must be much smaller
than the average. Deducting the five brigades, and supposing them
composed of only four regiments each, which is below the general
average, it gives an infantry reduction of twenty regiments, four hundred
each, or 8,000, leaving a remainder of 30,000.

VOL. I. 49

ifQ APPENDIX.

It is deazly aacertained tliat at least tm> brigades otcmkf have been
sent fix>m Van Dom's command to yGsmadppif and it is asserted in die
Chattanooga Rebel of June txtli that General Moigan's oonunand has
been permanently detached and sent to Eastern Kentndqr^ It is not
certain^ known how large his divisicm is, bat it is known to contain
at least two tvigades. Taking tins minimum as tlie &ct» we have a cav>»
aby reduction of four brigades.

Taking the lowest estimate, four rt^giments to. die brigade, we lunre a
reduction by detachment of sateen regiments^ five hnndred each, or
89O00, leaving his present effective cavalry fince 9»5oa With die nine
brigades of the two armies thus detached it wilt be safe, to say dieie
have gone: —

6 batteries, &> men each 480

Leaving him aa batteries 3»i30

Making a total reduction of ^ . • 16^480

And leaving of the three arms a total of 41,680

In this estimate of Bragg's present strei^gtfa I have {daced aB doubts in
his iBLVOT, and I have no doubt that my estimate is considerably beyond
die truth. Genera] Sieridan, who has taken great pains to collect evi-
dence on this point, places it consideraUy below diese figures. But

assuming these to be correct, and granting what is still more improbable,
that Bragg would abandon all his rear posts and entirely neglect his
communications, and could bring his last man into battle, I next ask.
What have we with which to oppose him?

The last official report of effective strength, now on file in the of-
fice of the Assistant Adjutant-General, is dated June nth instant, and
shows that we have in this department, omitting all officers and en-
listed men attached to department, corps, division, and brigade head-
quarters : —

1. Infantry. One hundred and seventy-three regiments ; ten battal-
ions sharp-shooters ; four battalions pioneers ; and one regiment of
engineers and mechanics ; with a total effective strength of 70,918.

2. Cavalry. Twenty-seven regiments and one unattached company ;
11,813.

3. Artillery. Forty-seven and a half batteries field artillery, consisting
of two hundred and ninety- two guns and 5,069 men, making a grand
total of 87,800.

Or, leaving out all commissioned officers, this army represents 82,767
bayonets and sabres.

Tliis report does not include the Fifth Iowa Cavalry, six hundred
strong, lately armed; nor the First Wisconsin Cavalry; nor Cobum's
brigade of infantry now arming ; nor the 2,394 convalescents now on
hght duty in Fortress Rosecrans.

APPENDIX. 771

There are detached from this force as follows : —

At Gallatin 969

At Carthage i,X49

At Fort Donelson 1,485

At Clarks villa 1,138

At Nashville 7*292

At Franklin 900

At Lavergne 2,117

Total i5»o5o

With these posts as they are, and leaving 2,500 efficient men in ad-
dition to the 2,394 convalescents to hold the works in this place, there
will be left 65,217 bayonets and sabres to throw against Bragg's 41,680.

I beg leave also to submit the following considerations : —

1. Bragg's army is now weaker than it has been since the battle of
Stone River, or is likely to be again for the present, while our army has
reached its maximum strength, and we have no right to expect further
reinforcements for several months, if at all. \

2. Whatever be the result at Vicksburg, the determination of its fate
will give large reinforcements to Bragg. If Grant is successful, his army
will require many weeks to recover from the shock and strain of his late
campaign, while Johnston will send back to Bragg a force sufficient to
insure the safety of Tennessee. If Grant fails, the same result will inevi-
tably follow, so far as Bragg*s army is concerned.

3. No man can predict with certainty the result of any battle, how-
ever great the disparity of numbers. Such results are in the hand of
God. But, viewing the question in the light of human calculation, I
refuse to entertain a doubt that this army, which in January last defeated
Bragg's superior numbers, can overwhelm his present greatly inferior
forces.

4. The most unfavorable course for us that Bragg could take would
be to fall back without giving us batde ; but this would be very disastrous
to him. Besides the loss of tnattriel of war, and the abandonment of
the rich and abundant harvest now nearly ripe in Central Tennessee, he
would lose heavily by desertion. It is well known that a wide-spread
dissatisfaction exists among his Kentucky and Tennessee troops. They
are already deserting in large numbers. A retreat would greatly increase
both the desire and the opportunity for desertion, and would very mate-
rially reduce his physical and moral strength. While it would lengthen
our communications, it would give us possession of McMinnville, and
enable us to threaten Chattanooga and East Tennessee ; and it would
not be unreasonable to expect an early occupation of the former place.

5. But the chances are more than even that a sudden and rapid
movement would compel a general engagement, and the defeat of Bragg
would be in the highest degree disastrous to the Rebellion.

772 APPENDIX.

6. The turbulent aspect of politics in the loyal Suics renders a deci-
sive blow against the tnemy at this time of the highest importance to
the success of the government at the polls, and in the enforcement of
the Conscription Act.

7- The government and the Wax Department believe that this array
ought to move upon the enemy, 'The aimy desires it, and the country
is anxiously hoping for il.

8. Our true objective point is the Rebel army, whose last reserves
arc subsianiially in the field, and an effective blow will crush the shell,
and soon be followed by the collapse of the Rebel government.

9- You have, in my judgment, wisely delayed a general movement
hitherto, till your arniy could be noassed, and your c-avalry could \ie
mounted. Your mobile forces can now be concentrated in twenty-four
hours, and your cavalry, if not equal in numerical strength to tliat of the
enemy, is greatly superior in efficiency and morale.

For these reasons I believe an immediate advance of all our available
forces is desirable, and, under the providence of Goil, will be successful.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

[Signed,] J, A. Carheld,

Brigadier-General, Chief of Staff .

MaJOR-GENERAL Rosecrans, Commanding Difarlmcnt ef tkt Cumberland.

II.

LETTER TO SECRETARY CHASE.

[The following letter was published bjr Mr. J. W. Schuclcers, June ii, i88», in the
New York Sun.]

(Confidential.)

Headquartbrs, Department op the Cuubbkland,
Nashville, July ij, 1863.

My dear Governor, — I have for a long time wanted to write to you,
not only to acknowledge your last kind letter, but also to say some things
confidentially on the movements in this department ; but I have retrained
hitherto lest I di injustice to a good man, and say to you things which
were better left unsaid. We have now, however, reached a point upon
which I feel it proper, and also due to that kind opinion which I believe
you have had of me, to acquaint you with the condition of affairs here,

I cannot conceal &om you the &ct, that I have been greatly tried and

APPENDIX. 773

dissatisfied with the slow progress that we have made in tb's department
since the battle of Stone River. I will say in the outset that it would be
in the highest degree unjust to say that the one hundred and sixty-two
days which elapsed between the battle of Stone River and the next ad-
vance of this army were spent in idleness or trifling. During that period
was performed the enormous and highly important labor which made the
Army of the Cumberland what it is, — in many respects by far the best the
country has ever known. But for many weeks prior to our late movement
I could not but feel that there was not that Uve and earnest determination
to fling the great weight of this army into the scale and make its power felt
in crushing the shell of the Rebellion. I have no words to tell you with
how restive and unsatisfied a spirit I waited and pleaded for striking a
sturdy blow. I could not justly say we were in any proper condition to
advance till the early days of May. At that time the strings began to draw
sharply upon the Rebels, both on the Mississippi and in the East. They
began to fear for the safety of Vicksburg, and before the middle of May
they began quietly to draw away forces to aid Pemberton. I pleaded for
an advance, but not till June began did General Rosecrans begin seri-
ously to meditate an immediate movement. The army had grown anx-
ious, with the exception of its leading generals, who seemed blind to the
advantages of the hour. In the first week of the month a council of war
was called, and out of eighteen generals whose opinion was asked, seven-
teen were opposed to an advance. I was the only one who urged upon
the General the imperative necessity of striking a blow at once, while
Bragg was weaker and we stronger than ever before. I wrote a carefiil
review of the opinions of the generals, and exhibited the facts, gathered
from ample data, that we could throw 65,000 bayonets and sabres against
Bragg*s 41,000, allowing the most liberal estimates of his force. This
paper was drawn up on the 8th [12th] of June. After its presentation,
and a full canvassing of the situation, an advance was agreed upon, but it
was delayed through days which seemed months to me till the 24th,
when it was begun, and ended with what results you know. The wisdom
of the movement was not only vindicated, but the seventeen dissenting
generals were compelled to confess that if the movement had been made
ten days earlier, while the weather was propitious, the army of Bragg
would, in all human probability, no longer exist. I shall never cease to
regret the sad delay which lost us so great an opportunity to inflict a
mortal blow upon the centre of the Rebellion.

The work of expelling Bragg from Middle Tennessee occupied nine
days, and ended July 3d, leaving his troops in a most disheartened and
demoralized condition, while our army, with a loss of less than one
thousand men, was in a few days fuller of potential fight than ever before.
On the 1 8th instant the bridges were rebuilt, and the cars were in full
communication from the Cumberland to the Tennessee.

77A

APPENDIX.

I have since then urged, with all the eamestneas I posses, a rapid
advanre, while Bragg's army was shattered and under cover, and before
Johnston and he could effect a junction. Thus far the General has been
singularly disinclined to grasp the situation with a strong hand, and make
the advantage his own.

I write this with more sorrow than I can tell you, for I love every bone
in his body, and nest to my dcsito lo see the Rebeilion blasted is my
anxiety to see him blessed. But even the bteadth of my love is not suffi-
cient to cover this almost fatal dela^'. My personal relations wtLli General
Rosecrans are all that I could desire. Officially I sliare his counseb and
responsibilities, even more tlian I desire ; but I beg you to know that this
delay is against my judgment and my every wish.

Pleasant as are my relations here, I would rather command a battalion
that would follow and follow, and strike and strike, than to hang back
while such golden moments arc passing. But the General and myself
believe that I can do more service in my present place than in command
of a division, though I am a^are that it is a position that promises better
in the way of promotion or popular credit. But if tliis inaction contin-
ues long, I shall ask to be relieved, and sent somewhere where I can be
part of a working army. But I do hope that you will soon hear that this
splendid army is at least irj-ing to do its part in the great work. If the
War neparinient lias not always boen ju^t, it has certainly been very in-
dulgent to this army. But I feel that the time has now come when it
should allow no plea to keep this army back (bam the most vigorous
activity.

I do hope that no hopes of peace or submissive terms on the part of
the Rebeb will lead the government to delay the draft and the vigorous
prosecution of the war. "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." Let the
nation now display the majesty of its power, and the work will be s[>eedily

I hope you will pardon this lengthy letter, but I wanted you to know
how the case stands, and I was unwilling to have you think me satisfied
with the delays here.

With kindest regards I am, as ever, your friend,

James A. Garfibld,
Hon. S. p. Ckase.

III.

REMARKS ON GENERAL ROSECRANS.
Made in the House of Representatives, February 17, iS^a ' /

WITH A HISTORY OF THE ATTENDANT PROCEEDINGS.

On the 2d of February, 1864, the Senate adopted a Joint Resolution thank-
ing Major-General George H. Thomas and the officers and men who fought
under his command at the battle of Chickamauga, September 19 and 20, 1863,
for their gallantry, good conduct, and soldier-like endurance. The resolu-
tion went to the House the same day, where it was reached in due course of
business, February 17, 1864. This is the official record of the day's pro-
ceedings, so far as this question is concerned : —

"Joint Resolution (Senate No. 11) of thanks to Major-General George H.
Thomas and the officers and men who fought under his command at the bat-
tle of Chickamauga, was the next business taken from the Speaker's table
and read a first and second time.

" Mr. Garfield. Is it in order to move an amendment to that resolution ?

"The Speaker. It is.

" Mr. Garfield. Then I move to amend by inserting the name of Major-
General W. S. Rosecrans before that of General Thomas, so that it will
read, *to Major-General W. S. Rosecrans and Major-General George H.
Thomas, and to the officers and men under them.*

" Mr.. Wilson. I believe that this House has already passed a joint
resolution of thanks to General Rosecrans.

** Mr. Garfield. The gentleman is mistaken.

** Mr. Stevens. We had better wait and have a separate resolution for
General Rosecrans.

" Mr. Farnsworth. So I think. I believe that these resolutions ought
to stand each by itself. This is a special resolution of thanks to the officers
and men who fought the battle of Chickamauga, and I am not prepared, with
the information I have in regard to that battle, to vote for or against a reso-
lution of thanks to Major-General Rosecrans. At all events, it seems to me
that each resolution should be acted on separately."

Mr. Garfield now took the floor, and made the following remarks. The
further history of the resolution should, however, be given.

Mr. Fenton. I move that the Joint Resolution be referred to the Com-
mittee on Military Affairs ; and upon that motion I demand the previous
question. •

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered, and
under the operation thereof the motion to refer was agreed to.

March 9th, Mr. Garfield, from the Committee on Military Affairs, re-
ported back Senate Joint Resolution No. 11, giving the thanks of Congress

77(5 APPENDIX.

to Major-General George H. Thomas, and the officers and men who foughl
under his command at the batlle of ChJckamauga. with an amend men I, and
Willi Ihc recommendation that as amended the resolution do pass.

The amendment inserts Iwfore the name of Major-General Thomas the
name of MAJor-General William S. Rosecrans, and includes also the officers
and men who fouglit under his comtnand in the same battle, on tlie i9tb and
2oth of September, 1863.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Joint Resolution, as amended, was ordered to a third readiag, and
was accordingly n;ad the third lime, and passed.

Mr. Garfield moved to amend the title, so as to make it read as fullows :
"Joint Resolution of thanks to Major-General William S. Rosecrans and
Major-General George H. Thomas, and the otBcers and men who fought
under their commands at the battle of Chickamauga."

The amendment and title was agreed to. The resolution as now amend-
ed went back 10 the Senate.

March lolh, the Senate proceeded to consider the House amendments. It
was ordered that tlie amendments be referred to the Committee on Militwjr
Affairs and the Militia. The resolution here slept the sleep of death ; at
least the Index to the Globe gives no further trace of it, and It undoubtedly
feU.

Mr. Speaker, — I regret that this resolution has come before the
House of Representatives as it is now presented. I had hoped I should
not be compelled to refer publicly to the matters involved in it, and
before 1 speak to the merits of the resolution itself I must be indulged in
the expression of my opinion in regard to the custom which is growing
up in this body in reference to this class of resolutions. The practice of
this House, during the brief period in which I have been a member, has
led me to fear that the thanks of the Congress of the United Slates are
becoming too cheap an article in the eulogistic literature of the world.
Time was when a man must stand grandly pre-eminent in the estimation
and affection of the American people to receive in the solemn forms of
law the thanks of the nation, through its representatives in Congress
assembled. To merit that was worth a lifetime of sacrifice and heroism.
We have changed this worthy custom. Since this session began, many
resolutions of thanks have been passed without being referred to the
appropriate committees, without remarks, and almost without notice.
They have been passed tacitly by a kind of common consent. We have
not only thanked officers who were chiefs of armies, but also those who
held subordinate positions in the various armies of the republic. No
question has been a.sked whether the ofllicer was entitled to this distinc-
tion, or whether, by thanking one, another was not robbed of his merited
honor. I repeat that I have seen these things with a feeling that we are
cheapening the thanks of Congress by distributing them without discrim-
ination and without question. I have been so willing to thank any tnaD

APPENDIX. 777

who has served the country in this war that I have not felt disposed to
interpose objection.

In many of the instances referred to I have had no knowledge of the
merits of the case. But when it comes so close to my own experience
and knowledge of the history of the war, I cannot permit a resolution of
this kind to pass without my protest against this hasty and thoughtless style
of legislation. I have been surprised that the honorable members of this
House should treat so lightly the matters involved in thanking the public
servants of the nation. I now appeal to your sense of justice whether it
be right to single out a subordinate officer, give him the thanks of Con-
gess, and pass his chief in silence. On what grounds are you now ready
to ignore the man who has won so many of the proudest victories ? I do
not believe that such is the purpose or wish of this House.

This resolution proposes to thank Major-General Thomas and the
officers and men under his command for gallant services in the battle
of Chickamauga. It meets my hearty approval for what it contains, but
my protest for what it does not contain. I should be recreant to my
own sense of justice did I allow this omission to pass without notice.
No man here is ready to say — and if there be such a man I am ready
to meet him — that the thanks of this Congress are not due to Major-
General W. S. Rosecrans for the campaign which culminated in the bat-
tle of Chickamauga. It is not uncommon throughout the press of the
country, and among many people, to speak of that battle as a disaster to
the army of the United States, and to treat of it as a defeat. If that
batde was a defeat, we may welcome a hundred such defeats. I should
be glad if each of our armies would repeat Chickamauga. Twenty such
would destroy the Rebel army and the Confederacy utterly and forever.

What was that battle, terminating as it did a great campaign whose
object was to drive the Rebel army beyond the Tennessee, and to obtain
a foothold on the south bank of that river which should form the basis
of future operations in the Gulf States ? We had never yet crossed that
river, except far below, in the neighborhood of Corinth. Chattanooga
was the gateway of the Cumberland Mountains, and until we crossed
the river and held the gateway we could not commence operations in
Georgia. The army was ordered to cross the river, to grasp and hold
the key of the Cumberland Mountains. It did cross, in the face of
superior numbers ; and after two days of fighting, more terrible, I be-
lieve, than any since this war began, the Army of the Cumberland hurled
back, discomfited and repulsed, the combined power of three Rebel
armies, gained the key to the Cumberland Mountains, gained Chatta-
nooga, and held it against every assault. If there has been a more
substantial success against overwhelming odds since this war began, I
have not heard of it.

We have had victories — God be thanked ! — all along the line ; but

m

y^ AT this war I know of no such battle against such numbers,
i^4Pfioa against an army of not le!>s by a man than 75,00a. After the
1 right wing on the bloody afternoon of September aoth.
I of the Army of the Cuml>erland stood and met 75.000
t them ; and they stood in their bloody tracks immovable
when night threw its mantle aiound them. They had
aapcffled the ha. xn'umk of the Rebel army. Who commanded tlie .\rmy
of dw CvtnbarhnU? Who otgani/ed, disciplined, and led it? Who
I cmipaigns? The general whose name is omitted in this
molutioo,— Mi^or^Genail W. S. SoKcnna.
' AadirinkthiaGenenlSoKcnaii? The Urtorjr of the coanttj t^
700, aod jrnir cfaiUKD kwxr k bf heat. It ii he irin fbn^' faattlei
and won vktcriea k Western Vhgiiiia nader die ahadow of aootbcr^
name. When ^k poetic pretender daimed ibe booor and received the
reward aa d>e anthor of Virgfl's itanaK in pnbe of Cnar, the great
Mantnan wrote cm the walk (tf Ae inqieriai pdice, " Hoa ego veni-
colm fed, bdit alKr hoDHea." So mifl^ Ae hero of Rich M*Mnii:|jfii
Mf, " I von diit batde, but anoAer has worn the lanrek."

FRnt Western ^niginia be went (o Miasiaippi, and thoe woa die
faattles of loka and Oninth, iriiieh hare aided malerialhr to exalt the
fame of that general upon whcnn dm Home haa been in indi tucte to
CTnier the proad rank of LJeutenant-General of the Army of the United
States, but who was not upon either of those battle-fields.

Who took command of the Army of the Cumberland, found that army
at Bowling Green, in November, i86z, as it lay disorganized, disheart-
ened, driven back from Alabama and Tennessee, and led it to the Cum-
berland, planted it in Nashville, and thence, on the first day of the new
year, planted his banners at Murfreesborough " in torrents of blood,"
and, in the moment of our extremest peril, throwing himself into the
breach, saved by his personal valor the Army of the Cumberland and
the hopes of the republic? It was General Rosecrans. From the day
he assumed the command at Bowling Green the history of that army
may be written in one sentence, — h advanced and maintained its ad-
vanced position, and its last campaign under the general it loved was
the bloodiest and most brilliant. Tlie fruits of Chickamauga were gath- .
ered in November on the heights of Mission Ridge and among the
clouds of Lookout Mountain. That battle at Chickamauga was a glori-
ous one,- and every loyal heart responded to it. But, sir, it was won
when we had nearly three times the number of the enemy. It ought
to have been won. Thank God that it was won. I would take no lau-
rel from the brow of the man who won it, but I would remind gentlemen
here, that, while the batde of Chattanooga was fought with vastly superior
numbers on our part, the battle of Chickamauga was fought with still
vaster superiority against us.

APPENDIX. 779

If there is any maa upon earth whom I honor, it is the man who is
named in this resolution, General George H. Thomas. I had occasion
in my remarks on the Conscription Bill, a few days ago, to refer to him
in such terms as I delighted to use ; and I say to gentiemen here, that,
if there is any man whose heart would be hurt by the passage of this
resolution as it now stands, that man is General George H. Thomas.
I know, and all know, that he deserves well of his country, and his name
ought to be recorded in letters of gold ; but I know equally well that
General Rosecrans deserves well of his country. I ask you, then, not
to pain the heart of a noble man, who will be burdened with the weight
of these thanks that wrong his brother officer and his superior in com-
mand. All I ask is that you will put both names into the resolution and
let them stand side by side.

END OF VOL. I.

University Press : John Wilson & Son, Cambridge.

\